ASSIGNMENT: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Name- Priya Pandit

BA LLB (Hons.)
200060401023
GD Goenka University

QUESTION- To Remove Disability Imposed by the Custom or Usage on Certain

Classes of Hindus Against Entry into Hindu Public Temple, State A passed law Under
Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution and Throw Open the Entry to any Such Temple to
all Sections of Hindus The Trustees of the denominational Hindu Temple Resists the
Application of Such LAW on the Ground that their Temple Had been Built for the
Benefit of a Particular Hindu Sect. They contend that Under Article 26(b) of the
Constitution, they have a Right to Manage their Affairs in the Matter of Religion
Which also includes the Right to Entry. Discuss the Rule of Interpretation that you
will apply to Resolve the Above Dispute.

The dispute as stated in the aforementioned instance would be settled in accordance with the
harmonious construction and reconciliation of conflicting parts within the Constitution.

Article 25(2)(b): This provision guarantees that all Hindus have the ability to access Hindu
temples and removes any limitations imposed on certain Hindu communities by custom or use.
This section aims to ensure that all Hindu groups have equal access to public temples,
irrespective of any disability imposed by usage or custom.
Article 26(b): Under this provision, religious denominations are granted the freedom to manage
their own religious matters, including the management of places of worship.

The constitution's Article 26(b) states that "every religious denomination or any section thereof
shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order,
morality, and health." When interpreting the restrictions on the application of Article 26(b), the
high court made a grave error. The custom of forbidding menstruation women from participating
in public life had to meet two requirements in order to be upheld under the constitution: it had to
be a part of "essential religious practice" and it had to be evaluated in light of "public order,
health, and morality." Moreover, even if the test is passed, the denomination's authority to
oversee internal matters cannot be sufficiently broad to completely restrict women's freedom of
religion.
It is important to remember that while this clause grants religious organizations the freedom to
manage their religious operations, including the operation of religious facilities, this freedom is
not unrestricted and must be used in compliance with other constitutional provisions, such as
those that safeguard equality and prohibit discrimination.
Given the apparent conflict between these two clauses, the principle of harmonic construction
suggests attempting to construe them so that, to the extent possible, each can be given effect
without making the other meaningless.

Presumption of Constitutionality: The State law passed under Article 25(2)(b) is presumed to be
constitutional, hence any challenge to that presumption must be successful. The temple trustees
have the burden of demonstrating that the law infringes upon their rights as stipulated in Article
26(b) of the Constitution.
Thus, in the aforementioned instance, the trustees of the denominational Hindu temple are
empowered to supervise matters pertaining to their religion, encompassing the management of
their temple. The use of this power, therefore, must be consistent with the larger goals of the
constitution, such as the equality and non discrimination guaranteed by Article 25(2)(b).

In other words, the trustees are free to run their temple however they see fit, but they are not
permitted to do it in a way that violates the rights guaranteed to other Hindu organizations by
Article 25(2). All Hindu demographic segments would be permitted entry since the law supports
the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination.

The constitution (Articles 25(1) and 26(b)) guarantees both individual and group rights, but only
for "religious practices," not for all religious activity. Over the years, the Supreme Court has
developed a controversial definition of "essential religious practices" in order to determine
whether or not religious practices are protected by the constitution. The evolution of legal ideas
about what constitutes essential religious rituals has been a defining feature of the doctrine's
development. Due to the high standard of this concept, the denomination has long been needed to
demonstrate that removing a controversial practice will fundamentally change the core beliefs of
the faith (Ananda Margi II case, Haji Ali case).

Although women's "non-entry" can be a religious principle, in this particular instance, it cannot
be assumed that regulating it will fundamentally and irreversibly undermine the sect's survival
and central tenets.

Following the landmark decisions of the Naz Foundation and Shreya Singhal, "morality" has
evolved to be viewed as "constitutional morality," as opposed to public or individual morality.
The essential collection of ideals and concepts that characterize and uphold the constitution, such
as equality, nondiscrimination, dignity, and the rule of law, is known as constitutional morality.
In the Sabarimala case, there is a strong presumption that the contested tradition of restricting
women violates the core principle of that morality, which is "non-discrimination."

Shirur Mutt Case (1954),The Supreme Court held that while every religious denomination enjoys
the freedom guaranteed under Article 26(b), this right is subject to public order, morality, and
health.The State can intervene if a religious practice is opposed to public order, morality, or
health.

Syed Hussain Ali v. Ajmer (1962), Durgah Committee:

The Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that a religious denomination's ability to exercise its
right to self-governance under Article 26 is affected by public health, morals, and order (b).
State intervention is necessary in order to protect social welfare and end discrimination.
Most importantly, the trustees' right to manage the temple's affairs must be balanced with the
State's obligation to ensure fair access to religious institutions.

The State is justified in interfering to promote social equality and put a stop to prejudice based
on caste or class.
In conclusion, resolving the issue requires analyzing relevant case law, evaluating the interests of
the State and the temple trustees, and evaluating relevant constitutional provisions. The trustees
still have the power to supervise temple operations, but in certain cases the State may rightfully
step in to ensure equality and put an end to discrimination. As a result of the Supreme Court's
standards established in multiple cases, it is likely that the State statute designed to remove
usage- or custom-based barriers to entry to Hindu public temples will be sustained.