Back
Supreme Court Reserves Sabarimala Verdict After 16 Days
In a highly anticipated development, the has reserved its judgment in the long-pending Sabarimala reference case following 16 days of exhaustive hearings before a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant. The proceedings, which commenced on April 7 and concluded on May 14, delved deeply into foundational constitutional questions surrounding religious freedom under and denominational autonomy under . This reference stems from the divisive 2018 Sabarimala verdict that permitted women of all ages to enter the Kerala hill shrine, sparking debates on the balance between individual rights to equality and group rights to religious practices. With broader ramifications for cases involving women's entry into mosques and dargahs, excommunication in Parsi and Dawoodi Bohra communities, and female genital mutilation (FGM), the verdict could redefine the contours of judicial intervention in matters of faith.
Chief Justice Surya Kant underscored the gravity of the Court's role, stating, “The constitutional court cannot give up its responsibility. You cannot surrender that.” The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, grappled with whether principles like arbitrariness under or prohibitions under apply to religious tenets, potentially reshaping decades of jurisprudence on the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine.
Historical Context: From 2018 Judgment to Larger Bench Reference
The saga traces back to September 2018, when a five-judge bench, by a 4:1 majority led by then-CJI Dipak Misra, struck down the centuries-old tradition barring women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. The majority held the practice unconstitutional, invoking (equality) and (untouchability), with Justice D.Y. Chandrachud notably equating menstruation-based exclusion to a form of physical disability akin to untouchability. Dissenting, Justice Indu Malhotra emphasized judicial restraint in essential religious practices.
Review petitions followed, and in November 2019, another five-judge bench headed by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred broader issues to a larger bench by a 3:2 majority, deeming them unfit for resolution without comprehensive examination. This referral expanded beyond Sabarimala to encompass discrimination in diverse faiths, recognizing that
"broader issues of religious freedom could not be decided without examining the specific facts of each case."
Subsequent affirmations in 2020 upheld the reference power under review jurisdiction.
The Centre, through written submissions and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, supported reviewing the 2018 verdict, arguing the restriction falls within
"religious faith and denominational autonomy"
beyond judicial purview.
The 9-Judge Constitution Bench and Seven Key Questions
The bench framed seven pivotal questions to guide deliberations: 1. Scope and ambit of . 2. Interplay between (individual rights) and (denominational rights). 3. Whether rights are subject to other fundamental rights beyond public order, morality, and health. 4. Scope of "morality" in Articles 25/26—does it include constitutional morality? 5. Extent of judicial review over religious practices under . 6. Meaning of "sections of Hindus" in (2)(b). 7. Can non-members of a denomination challenge its practices via PIL?
These questions highlight tensions between vertical (state-directed) and horizontal (inter-private) rights application, with counsel debating 's
"subject to other provisions of this Part"
clause.
Core Arguments on Articles 25 and 26 Interplay
Central to arguments was interpreting (1)'s subjection to
"other provisions of this Part"
(). Respondents contended it extends limitations to , rooting denominational rights in (1). Proponents of religious autonomy, including Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, countered with three principles: prefer interpretations upholding rights' fullness; clear constitutional words preclude implied limits; individual () and denominational () freedoms differ.
Subramanium clarified,
"An irrational factor which borders on extreme irrelevance that is relevant for judicial review vis-a-vis . But in the scope of Articles 25 and 26, you may employ rationality for the purpose of logic or inquiry of determination, but test of rationality are more close to ."
He stressed subscribers to denominations must adhere to tenets, remedying intra-group injuries via civil suits, not petitions.
Solicitor General Mehta echoed, rejecting 's arbitrariness for faith:
"Your lordships' scrutiny would not be the constitutional understanding of ... but from a point of view of the person who follows a religion and he has a belief system which is protected by the Constitution."
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi urged viewing (1)'s subjection contextually—impacting only conflicting rights like (untouchability)—not wholesale imposition of .
Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan disputed blanket subjection, noting could yield to non-religious limits like (public order). Abhishek Manu Singhvi highlighted rights' varying pre-existing status, while Gopal Shankarnarayan posited as non-horizontal.
Justices' Probing Questions and Perspectives
Justice B.V. Nagarathna emerged as a key voice, critiquing expansive interpretations:
"Nobody has argued what the meaning of 'subject to other parts of ' is till today. There is no assistance on that."
She advocated juxtaposing with religiously themed Articles 26-28, arguing Articles 14-24 (non-religion focused) do not override, as targeted caste, not gender.
"Your side are saying all Articles from 14-24 shall prevail over , forgetting the fact that Articles 25 and 26 are also a part of ."
Justice Nagarathna rejected 2018's reliance for menstruation taboos. Justice M.M. Sundresh queried individual vs. denominational rights parity, while Justice Joymalya Bagchi affirmed justiciability short of value judgments. Justice Prasanna B. Varale rejected hands-off approaches in denominational disputes.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan emphasized Articles 26/29 as group rights, critiquing Sabarimala for nullifying post-ERP exclusion and "constitutional morality" as standalone invalidator. Rakesh Dwivedi defended Hinduism as
"religious philosophy and deeply evolved social structure,"
not mere "way of life."
Rejoinders, Amicus Insights, and Evolving Debates
Amicus K. Parameshwar advocated a middle path: no straightjacket exclusion of rights based on horizontal/vertical labels.
"If mylords in a nine-judge combination is to say that Articles 14, 19 and 21 have no application at all, it freezes the law."
Citing FGM, he urged balancing with safeguards like locus standi, limiting review to rituals/succession. He slammed ERP as "deeply elitist" and non-textual.
Mukul Rohatgi noted Parsi excommunication ceased post-75 years. Subramanium opposed rights hierarchies, distinguishing religion from denomination.
Far-Reaching Implications for Religious Freedom Cases
The verdict looms over pending matters: Muslim women in dargahs/mosques, Parsi women in Agiaries, Dawoodi Bohra excommunication, FGM. A pro-autonomy ruling could limit PILs by outsiders (per question 7), prioritizing facts over generalizations.
Analyzing the Stakes: Judicial Review, ERP Doctrine, and Beyond
Legally, the case tests ERP's viability—criticized for judicial overreach into theology—and rationality's role in faith. Proponents like Mehta/Subramanium argue scrutiny undermines belief systems; opponents fear entrenching patriarchy. Nagarathna's thematic segregation (religion articles overriding non-religion) could insulate practices from equality challenges, embedding (2)(b) social reform power.
For practitioners, it signals strategic shifts: favor civil suits for intra-denominational disputes; bolster locus in PILs; refine ERP challenges with historicity evidence. Constitutionally, it may evolve a "judicial policy" for balancing, averting floods of faith-based petitions.
Looking Ahead: Transformative Potential for Indian Jurisprudence
As the bench reserves judgment, the Sabarimala reference transcends one temple, poised to calibrate secularism's interface with pluralism. Whether affirming 2018's progressivism or restoring deference, it promises clarity on where religious freedom ends and equality begins—essential for India's diverse polity.
