Back
SC Debates Judicial Role in Essential Religious Practices
NEW DELHI – A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the , led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, has commenced hearings on the high-stakes Sabarimala reference, with the Centre forcefully arguing that the landmark 2018 judgment permitting women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple was "wrongly decided" and merits reversal. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, challenged the judiciary's authority to define "essential religious practices," urging greater deference to religious denominations under of the Constitution. The proceedings, which began on April 7, 2026, address seven pivotal constitutional questions with ramifications extending far beyond Kerala’s Sabarimala shrine to practices across Hinduism, Islam, Parsi worship, and the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the lone woman on the bench, emphasized judicial scrutiny of practices masquerading as religion, stating, “If there is a social evil branded as a religious practice, court can certainly distinguish between the two.” This intervention underscores the tension between faith-based autonomy and constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, setting the stage for a ruling that could redefine religious freedom in India.
Historical Background of the Sabarimala Dispute
The controversy traces back to a 2006 public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the challenging the age-based exclusion of women aged 10-50 from the Sabarimala temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, a celibate deity. This custom, rooted in centuries-old traditions, was codified under .
In September 2018, a five-judge bench led by then-Chief Justice Dipak Misra ruled 4:1 in favor of entry, holding the restriction violative of (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 17 (abolition of untouchability), and 25 (freedom of religion). The majority rejected claims that Ayyappa devotees formed a distinct "religious denomination" under , deeming the exclusion discriminatory and akin to untouchability. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, advocating non-interference in sincerely held religious beliefs.
The verdict sparked massive protests in Kerala, culminating in the January 2019 entry of two women, Bindu Ammini and Kanaka Durga, past the age barrier. Over 50 review petitions followed, filed by the temple's chief priest Kantaru Rajeevaru, the , and devotee groups.
The Review Process and Reference to Larger Bench
In November 2019, a five-judge review bench under then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a 3:2 majority, abstained from merits and referred broader issues to a larger bench, citing inconsistencies with precedents like the Shirur Mutt case (1954, establishing the ERP test) and Dargah Committee. Justices R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud dissented, viewing it as undue deferral.
A nine-judge bench led by then-CJI S.A. Bobde upheld the reference in February 2020 and reframed seven precise questions, addressing criticisms of vagueness. Tagged matters now include 66 cases: Muslim women’s mosque entry, Parsi women’s fire temple access post-interfaith marriage, Dawoodi Bohra female genital mutilation (FGM), and excommunication practices.
The Seven Constitutional Questions at Stake
The bench is tasked with resolving:
- Scope and ambit of Article 25's right to freedom of religion.
- Interplay between individual rights under Article 25 and denominational rights under .
- Whether rights are subject to other Part III fundamental rights beyond public order, morality, and health.
- Scope of "morality" in Articles 25/26—does it encompass constitutional morality?
- Extent of judicial review over religious practices under Article 25.
- Meaning of "sections of Hindus" in , enabling laws for social reform.
- Can non-members of a denomination challenge its practices via PIL?
These questions promise a comprehensive framework for religion-state relations.
Centre's Arguments: Rejecting the 2018 Judgment
Opening arguments, SG Mehta declared,
"It is my case that it is wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law."
He contested the 2018 view equating the exclusion with untouchability under Article 17, noting it was age-specific, not universal—women enter other Ayyappa temples.
"There can't be untouchability for 3 days a month,"
quipped Justice Nagarathna, referencing menstrual cycles.
Mehta decried the ERP doctrine as flawed, arguing courts lack spiritual expertise:
"To determine whether something is essential or not, one would first have to undertake a judicial review of religious scripture... That... is not possible unless one attains that level of spiritual understanding."
He advocated legislative reform via , not judicial fiat, and interpreted Article 25 equality as inter-religious, not intra-gender.
Criticizing Western patriarchy lenses, Mehta warned against compressing Hinduism's "inherently plural" nature—sans canonical texts—into rigid definitions, which would undermine sects, rituals, and customs.
The bench clarified it would not revisit Sabarimala merits directly but address foundational issues, with Mehta treating it as "sui generis."
Judicial Observations and Interventions
Justice Nagarathna distinguished propagation from coercion under Article 25 and rejected simplistic untouchability analogies, given Article 17's historical caste context. The TDB urged a "community-centric" view, rejecting ERP as overreach. Intervener echoed: courts encroach on autonomy. Original petitioners, represented by Indira Jaising, defend the 2018 ruling.
Bench Composition and Hearing Schedule
Comprising CJI Surya Kant (presiding, prior reference member), Justices Nagarathna (sole woman), M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih (minority perspective), Prasanna B. Varale (SC community), R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. Hearings: Review supporters (Apr 7-9), opponents (14-16), rejoinders (21), amicus (22).
Legal Analysis: Reexamining the ERP Doctrine
The ERP test, from Shirur Mutt, allows courts to invalidate non-essential practices conflicting with rights. Critics like Mehta argue it demands impossible scriptural exegesis, especially for Hinduism's oral, diverse traditions. A rigid approach risks "doctrinally flawed" uniformity, violating pluralism.
protects "practice" subject to public order, morality, health; grants denominations management freedom. The reference probes if other rights (e.g., Art 14/15) override, and constitutional morality's primacy. Equality under Art 25, per Centre, means parity among religions, not internal reforms—reserved for legislature.
Sabarimala exemplifies: Was exclusion essential to Ayyappa's celibate vow, or discriminatory? Overruling 2018 could affirm denominational sanctity; upholding expands gender rights.
Implications for Legal Practice and Beyond
For constitutional litigators, outcomes will recalibrate PIL standing— curtailing outsider challenges?—and judicial deference, shifting burden to legislatures. Gender lawyers face setbacks if faith trumps biology-based exclusions; minority rights advocates gain if denominations self-govern.
Precedent will bind mosque/dargah entries (no women?), Parsi agiaries (married-out exclusion?), Bohra FGM (essential?). It may dismantle ERP, fostering "hands-off" jurisprudence, impacting 100+ pending faith cases.
Politically timed pre-Kerala polls, it tests federalism: TDB seeks scholar input; Centre prioritizes civilizational values.
Conclusion: Balancing Faith and Constitution
As arguments unfold, the bench confronts: Does the Constitution govern believers, or believers shape Constitution? A nuanced framework—distinguishing core faith from social evils—may emerge, preserving India's secular pluralism while advancing dignity. Legal professionals await a judgment etching religion's contours for decades.
(Word count: approximately 1450)
