Back
Supreme Court Cautions on Religion Annihilation in Sabarimala Day 10
NEW DELHI – On the tenth day of hearings before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the
, justices delivered pointed warnings against judicial overreach into religious customs under the guise of reform. Justice B.V. Nagarathna starkly observed,
"In the name of reform, don't hollow out the religion"
, underscoring fears that aggressive interventions could "annihilate religion." The bench, grappling with the landmark Sabarimala reference, emphasized India's unique strength in diversity while probing the delicate balance between individual freedoms under
and denominational autonomy under
. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing women who entered the temple post-2018 verdict, clashed with the bench over temple entry rights, locus standi for public interest litigations (PILs), and the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test. These exchanges highlight a pivotal moment in constitutional jurisprudence on faith, potentially reshaping judicial scrutiny of age-old customs.
Genesis of the Sabarimala Controversy
The Sabarimala saga traces back to the 2018 judgment in , where a 4:1 majority struck down the 's upheld custom barring women aged 10-50 from the Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala. The majority invoked gender equality, , and 's non-discrimination mandate, deeming the practice discriminatory and not an "essential religious practice." Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing deference to denominational rights under .
Review petitions led to a reference by a five-judge bench in 2019 to a larger nine-judge bench, clarifying it is
not reviewing the 2018 verdict
but addressing broader questions on religious liberty. Earlier reports noted the Solicitor General's submission that
"India [is] Not Patriarchal Or Gender Stereotyped As The West Understands"
, rejecting assumptions of male superiority embedded in the 2018 ruling. Justice Nagarathna had quipped,
"There Can't Be Untouchability For 3 Days A Month"
, questioning
's application to menstrual taboos.
This reference arrives amid rising temple entry disputes, testing the judiciary's role in a pluralistic society.
The 9-Judge Constitutional Bench and Core Questions
Presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the bench comprises Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. It is seized of seven pivotal questions:
- Scope and ambit of 's right to freedom of religion.
- Interplay between (individual rights) and (denominational rights).
-
Subjection of
rights to other
provisions beyond public order, morality, health.
-
Meaning of "morality" in Articles 25-26 – constitutional or otherwise?
-
Judicial review extent over religious practices under
.
-
Interpretation of "sections of Hindus" in
(2)(b).
- Locus standi for non-denominational outsiders to challenge practices via PIL.
These frame a high-stakes inquiry into whether courts can "lift the veil" on believers or assume theological roles.
Tense Exchanges on Day 10: Jaising vs. the Bench
Day 10 featured rigorous questioning of Indira Jaising, who asserted (1)'s individual religious freedom trumps denominational rights. She urged against a "hands-off" approach, positioning judicial review as inherent, and clarified claims limit to entry, not rituals. Religions evolve, she argued, and the Constitution is a living document.
Justice Nagarathna countered that
(2)(b)'s social reform power is enabling, not a right:
"Let us not open rituals and ceremonies which are there for centuries."
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah warned courts risk becoming theologians amid interpretive schisms:
"Everytime the court intervenes, there has to be a limit because then the whole constitutional protection will look illusory."
Jaising rejected believer-only standing, advocating entry with "reverence" for introspection. Amanullahh probed partial acceptance of deity aspects and long-crystallized customs:
"Over centuries, certain things... have transformed into a basic element. Suddenly, after so many years, somebody comes up!"
Justice Sundresh envisioned chaos:
"Each one will go and say I don't want it in a particular way, it will be a disaster."
Justice Nagarathna culminated:
"It will be annihilating religion, which we don't want to be a part of. Matters of conscience cannot be a subject matter of debate in a secular court."
Jaising queried harm from women's entry absent theological basis; the bench invoked custom and public sentiment.
Echoes from Earlier Hearings
Prior days built this crescendo. Justice Nagarathna celebrated
"We are strong because we are diverse, it is unique to India"
, linking
(b) protection to national unity. She questioned northerners claiming southern temple rights and clarified state intervention where practices disrupt public order, like road blockages:
"Apart from that, if a secular activity is also getting affected, then the state can step in."
Day 8 saw caution on "WhatsApp university" sources, with CJI noting respect for opinions but distinguishing personal views. Day 7 urged Hindu unity, rejecting exclusionary denominations. The Centre critiqued 2018's patriarchal premise.
Dissecting the Legal Matrix
At core is 's duality: individual practice (25(1)) vs. state reform for Hindu sections (25(2)(b)). shields "matters of religion," per Shirur Mutt (1954), but ERP test – evolved in Durgah Committee (1961) – deems non-essentials regulable. The bench scrutinizes its future: Jaising cautioned total discard, Sundresh urged circumspection.
"Constitutional morality" – Sabarimala 2018's tool – faces pushback as potentially imposing secular ideals on faith. PIL locus challenges precedents allowing outsider suits. Public order bridges secular intervention, echoing Sabarimala peripherally.
Ramifications for Constitutional Jurisprudence
This hearing signals judicial restraint renaissance post-2018 activism. Victory for denominations could fortify , limiting PIL tourism in faith disputes and preserving customs like Sabarimala's naishtika brahmachari (celibate) deity belief. Women's rights advocates fear regression, but bench's diversity nod suggests nuanced equality sans erasure.
For practitioners: Expect tighter standing scrutiny, ERP refinements, morality hierarchy (constitutional over social?). Impacts cascade to Haji Ali, Shani Shingnapur-like cases, federal social reform laws.
Looking Ahead
As hearings continue, the bench's verdict could recalibrate faith-justice equilibrium, affirming "diversity is our strength" while guarding against reform's excesses. Legal professionals await clarity on when courts step in – or step back – preserving India's plural soul.
