Gopal Urges Supreme Court to Protect Reformist Voices

In a poignant intervention before the Supreme Court of India's nine-judge constitutional bench hearing the high-stakes Sabarimala reference, Dr. G Mohan Gopal, representing the Sree Narayana Manava Dharmam Trust, made a compelling case for recalibrating the judicial interpretation of religious freedom. Arguing on Wednesday, Gopal urged the court to ensure that constitutional protections under Articles 25 and 26 do not inadvertently silence reformist voices emerging from within religious communities themselves . Drawing on historical reformers like Sri Narayana Guru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's foundational vision, he framed the debate not merely as a clash between individual rights and denominational privileges, but as a vital space for internal social justice movements. This submission positions the reference as a "rare constitutional opportunity" for course correction without amending the Constitution.

The exchange highlighted tensions in India's religion jurisprudence, with Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice B.V. Nagarathna engaging actively, underscoring the bench's attentiveness to evolving individual agency within faith structures.

The Sabarimala Reference: Context and Stakes

The Sabarimala saga traces back to the 2018 verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala , where a Constitution Bench by 4:1 held that excluding women aged 10-50 from the Ayyappa temple violated equality and religious freedom under Articles 14, 15, and 25. Review petitions led to the 2019 reference to a larger nine-judge bench to resolve broader questions on the interplay between Articles 25 (freedom of conscience and religion) and 26 (religious denominations' rights to manage affairs), including the "essential religious practices" test from Shirur Mutt (1954).

Ongoing hearings probe whether religious customs can override Part III guarantees, particularly amid challenges like women's entry and caste-based exclusions in temples. Gopal's intervention as an intervenor amplifies voices from within Hinduism, cautioning against interpretations that entrench orthodoxy at the expense of transformative internal reforms.

Advocating for Space Within Religious Freedom

Gopal opened by identifying a critical gap: “The point I seek to address is one issue which, in my respectful submission, has not received adequate attention so far. That is the demand for social justice emerging from within religious communities themselves.”

He invoked 19th-century movements led by figures like Sri Narayana Guru, who championed equality for lower castes within Hinduism, arguing that the Constitution must foster such internal reformist traditions to complement Part III's transformative ethos. "What I seek to submit is this: can space be found within the architecture of the constitutional right to religion itself for these reformist forces within religions to remain active?" he posed.

Critiquing seven decades of jurisprudence, Gopal contended that courts have "silenced" these voices by treating religion as an insulated "silo," detached from equality and liberty rights—a contrast to the post- Maneka Gandhi (1978) integration of rights. He described the reference as "an extraordinary opportunity for a course correction. Not by changing the Constitution, but by recalibrating the interpretive structure in a manner that creates constitutional space for such internal reformist traditions."

Judicial Observations and Gopal's Rebuttals

Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that internal reforms would be protected under Article 25. Gopal countered that while voluntary reform is theoretically possible, judicial precedents have effectively barred it.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna defended Hinduism as a "way of life," independent of rituals, observing that religiosity persists in the psyche without formal practices. Gopal welcomed this, replying: “If that understanding comes through in the reference judgment, it would provide enormous constitutional relief.”

He challenged monolithic definitions, referencing Swami Yagnapurushdasji (1966), where then-CJI P.B. Gajendragadkar equated Hinduism with Vedic authority—a view Gopal rejected as alienating non-Vedic adherents, including many classified as Hindus. "Where is individual choice? Where is the agency?" he asked, highlighting subsumption into orthodoxy.

In closing orals, Gopal warned: "The real issue before this Court in these hearings is this - faith in God versus faith in clergy. Please do not allow faith in clergy to defeat faith in God originating in the conscience of the individual." Justice Nagarathna reaffirmed Article 25(1) as part of Part III.

Historical Foundations: Ambedkar and Reformers

Bolstering his case, Gopal cited a 1947 memorandum by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to the Constituent Assembly's Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee. Ambedkar proposed liberty of conscience and free exercise, right to "profess, preach and convert"—pointedly omitting "practice." This, Gopal argued, reflected awareness of oppressive religious structures, prioritizing conscience over ritualistic enforcement.

Such framers' intent, he submitted, demands interpretations favoring individual spiritual agency over institutional dogma.

Written Submissions: Recasting Religion Jurisprudence

The Trust's detailed plea calls for a fundamental recast, rejecting religion as a "self-governing sovereign, autocratic and theocratic republic ruled by an oligarchic clergy" immune from Part III. It distinguishes Article 25's individual protections from Article 26's managerial denominational rights, accusing courts of elevating the latter to suppress dissenters.

Priests, it argues, cannot impose disabilities on devotees; restrictions like Sabarimala's must be legislatively enacted and justified, not judicially blessed. "Who speaks for Hinduism?" the submission probes, questioning exclusion of Dalits, backward castes, women, and "auto-theistic" individuals in favor of Brahminical orthodoxy.

On "morality" in Articles 25-26, it insists on constitutional morality —values like equality—not religious prejudice. Article 25(2)(b) is hailed as a "revolutionary mandate" for democratizing Hinduism, broadly interpreting "sections of Hindus" to include oppressed groups, enabling state intervention against inequality.

Judicial review remains essential where religion perpetuates hierarchy; PILs by marginalized voices must be maintainable.

Key Legal Principles at Play

Gopal's arguments interrogate core doctrines: the "essential practices" test risks clerical veto over faith; without guardrails, denominations could "secede" from Part III. Integrating Maneka 's golden triangle (Articles 14, 19, 21) into religious freedom would subject practices to proportionality scrutiny.

Constitutional morality, echoed in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Sabu Matthew George (2021), must govern, preventing exclusionary claims.

Implications for Constitutional Law and Practice

A favorable verdict could dismantle the "dyarchy" critique, harmonizing religious rights with social justice. It empowers courts to validate internal reformers, potentially unlocking temple access for women and castes nationwide—echoing Shayara Bano (triple talaq) and Kerala temple entry movements.

For litigators, it signals robust PIL viability, shifting strategy from frontal assaults to amplifying intra-faith voices. Theologians and reformers gain constitutional ammunition, while denominations face stricter essentiality probes.

Broader, it reinforces secularism as active intervention against orthodoxy, aligning with Ambedkar's vision of liberty over license.

Impact on Legal Practice

Legal practitioners in constitutional and public law will monitor for shifts in maintainability thresholds—Gopal's nod to marginalized PILs could expand locus standi. Firms advising religious institutions may pivot to legislative lobbying over judicial defenses. Academics anticipate citations in gender, caste equality cases, influencing federal-state dynamics on temple reforms.

This reference, if recalibrated, fortifies Part III against privatized theocracy, ensuring faith serves humanity, not hierarchy.

Conclusion: Faith in Conscience Over Clergy

Dr. Gopal's intervention elevates the Sabarimala reference beyond temple gates to a meditation on Constitution's soul: individual conscience as paramount. By heeding internal reformist calls, the bench can honor framers like Ambedkar, fostering a jurisprudence where faith evolves with justice. As hearings continue, this "extraordinary opportunity" beckons transformative clarity.