When supreme court was recently seen acting like a priest while giving its verdict of on Sabarimala temple case, in the opinion of 5 bench judges , the judge who carried the dissent opinion was the women only , Justice Indu Malhotra remark “The notion of essentiality in the religious practices should better to leave in the hands of people know more about it”, she is referring to the clergy class of the religions.
Before the court impose its own faith and overturn the millions faith in their diety, they should first check about the essentiality of few questions for their own good like what really happens inside the temples or why it even exists? what is the purpose for millions of people going there? who is the main god or diety inside? To whom temple belongs to? , this is the basic knowledge that every learned judge should have before passing any order in regards to religion.
But opposite to this courts in India and judges sitting there don’t understand this essence of religion and can’t figure how it matters to the people, like Justice Indu Malhotra did as women, herself she justified Sabarimala temple values to not allowing women aged between 15 to 50 inside for the darshan because she might know that she may have wisdom in her level knowledge but not having enough wisdom to interpret any faith and to turn the religious practice in her way or logic. But for most of the judges in courts unlike Indu Malhotra, its easy task nowadays to understand and interpreted religion especially such a diverse religion like Hinduism which an ocean to discover in its nature, judges apply their own legal logic under ambit and shield of the constitution. The courts have to understand that a temple is not a place of entertainment or a picnic spot or not even a state-owned property where everyone must go its to see, it’s only for those who have the feeling of bhakti in their hearts because of its a place of purity, a sacred house where the god resides.
In Hinduism concept of the temple is way different from the Abrahamic religion like Islam or Christianity, Hindu temples are the house of a living deity because in Hinduism god resides under the cosmos between its people a stone figure like thing called “Murti” is a living god inside the temple. When someone or community construct give a shape to the temple and place that stone figure inside, it’s first to perform “Pran Pratistha” making that murti alive by inviting God to live under that as a living being, so whenever bhakta or follower come he can have direct interaction able to do “darshan” with its diety. It’s very different from the religion like Islam or Christianity, where mosques or churches just symbolizes the god but in actually there is no god present inside, they all live out of the cosmos in the heaven and place just remain and act as a prayer hall.
As diety live inside in the temple as a living thing, so every diety having resemblance of unique character, having it’ own choices, a way of living, preferences, and way of the method in which a bhakta can approach him. Every Hindu god shrine has adapted itself and bounded with the local traditions, customs, and values. For example, Shakti or goddess Durga is happier within Bengali traditions if fish is giving to her but as an opposite, according to traditions of north India no god will like of killing of any living organisms, so here goddess much more satisfies with the coconut given to her.
In the case of Sabrimala diety living inside known as Ayyappa. As the local traditions Ayyapa is a Naitshika Brahmachari, his character defines him as the person who doesn’t want that any young women come and see to him due to his promise and love for his beloved Malikapurratham that believed one day Ayyappa will marry her, this is value and tradition is what follows from 1000 years constantly with feeling of bhakti for their Ayyappa. People from centuries making sure the protection of Ayyappa this wish, choice and unique identity. Nobody will tolerate that someone in the shape of the court who don’t even any sense of Ayyappa life tries to interfere in Ayaapa way of life and directing it’s faith that molds their Ayyaapa character.
If courts still wants and impose its so-called legal-faith on the actual faith then its nothing but an big “insult to the 10000 years of traditions and values of Hinduism and courts should also understand that temple is a not museum or art of gallery to showcase its place where bhakti exists in the from conversation between a god and his bhakta. Courts cannot decide what is essential for religion or what no, it’s not its prime work that’s how religious freedom can be achieved as our constitution suggests. Directing and declaring mosque as not an essential part of Islman recently clears us how Supreme judges become really interesting to for being as a priest but without enough knowledge.