Back
Supreme Court Cautions on PILs in Sabarimala Hearing
In a poignant observation during the fourth day of hearings in the high-stakes
, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that
"The most difficult task for a Court is how to give a declaration that the belief of millions of people is wrong or erroneous."
This statement encapsulated the
's delicate balancing act between constitutional rights and deeply held religious faiths.
, representing the
—the custodians of the Sabarimala temple—urged the 9-judge Constitution Bench to impose a
"ten times higher" threshold
for entertaining
challenging religious practices, particularly those filed by non-believers. The Bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, probed these submissions intensely, highlighting concerns over judicial overreach in matters of faith.
The hearing revisited foundational questions referred in from the review petitions against the , which by a 4:1 majority had permitted women of all ages to enter the temple, overturning age-based restrictions. Singhvi's arguments extended beyond to a radical call: abolish the birthed in the , arguing it empowers judges to dissect religion's core.
The Sabarimala Reference: A Recap
The Sabarimala saga traces back to a judgment where a 5-judge Bench, led by then-CJI Dipak Misra, held that the temple's ban on women of menstruating age (10-50 years) violated . Dissenting, Justice Indu Malhotra emphasized religious denominations' autonomy under . Massive protests ensued, prompting review petitions. In , a 7-judge Bench referred 11 intertwined questions to a larger Bench, including the 's scope, inter-play of religious freedoms ( ) with equality provisions, and whether non-Hindus or non-believers can challenge practices via PIL.
This reference transcends Sabarimala, potentially impacting issues like Muslim women's mosque entry, Parsi women’s fire temple access post-interfaith marriage, Dawoodi Bohra female genital mutilation, and excommunication practices. The TDB, managing the Kerala temple, has positioned itself as defender of tradition, disagreeing with groups like the on interpretations.
PILs in Religious Disputes: High Threshold Advocated
Central to Day 4 was Issue 7:
Can courts entertain PILs questioning religious practices by non-adherents?
Singhvi argued for a
"very high threshold"
, decrying third-party petitioners imposing
"objective PIL collective consciousness standards"
on believers.
"You have a supposed PIL petitioner coming and saying that look my belief is that this religious practice is not a good religious practice,"
he illustrated, noting the right-holder (believer) isn't challenging, yet the state and temple become respondents.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi posed a hypothetical: If a leader preaches
mass suicide for salvation
, can a non-sect PIL intervene? Singhvi conceded "extreme cases" might justify it, but the
ordinary rule is non-interference
—courts could even act
. CJI Surya Kant agreed, stressing higher bars. Justice BV Nagarathna labeled such petitioners
"interlopers"
, dismissing PILs if aggrieved believers haven't approached.
"Believer will not question it. Who is this, who is the petitioner?"
she queried.
Justice MM Sundresh asked:
"Can the Court decide without hearing the representatives of millions?"
Singhvi submitted a chart of 23 judgments by adherents, urging:
"PIL should not become a vehicle for interpreting a religious practice."
Last week, the Bench had questioned entertaining non-devotee PILs in Sabarimala itself.
Dismantling the Essential Religious Practices Test
Singhvi's tour de force targeted the ERP doctrine, which protects only "fundamental" practices under Article 25.
"Please eschew and eradicate the
, which has caused confusion,"
he pleaded. Categorizing religion as essential/non-essential invites judges to play theologian:
"It becomes a license to permit judges or external adjudicators to decide the essential and non-essential component of what is religion. That cannot be... then your lordships don't know where to stop."
Alternatives? Use Article 25's opening restrictions (public order, morality, health) or
for social reform. Practices failing "subjective-objective" religion test are regulable; genuine collective beliefs are shielded unless violating
's triad (public order, health, morality). He cited
Digambar Jain nudity
: Sadhus appear naked at functions attended by women, tracing to Mahavira (6th BC).
"Nudity in all other forms is proscribed... But it is nobody’s case that [Jainism] will be abolished because of some external standard."
Extreme practices outside "collective, institutional... belief" aren't religion; others demand deference.
Defending Sabarimala's Traditions
Abstract constitutionalism won't suffice, Singhvi insisted—facts matter. Sabarimala worships Lord Ayyappa as (eternal celibate, renouncing grihastha ashram). Rituals like 41-day vratam embody austerity/celibacy. Restriction isn't gender-based exclusion: Women <10 and >50 enter freely, creating age classification with " " to deity's identity.
Women 10-50 aren't denied Ayyappa worship—they access other temples.
"The Sabarimala issue cannot be decided in abstract constitutional terms without understanding the unique religious character of the deity."
Bench's Probing Remarks
The Bench echoed caution. Justice Nagarathna:
"We cannot hollow out religion in the name of social welfare reform."
On
, she clarified:
"Legislation cannot be struck down on the ground of
"
—only
violations or incompetence. Singhvi called it an
"
... a dinosaur."
Justice Amanullah queried blanket rejection; Singhvi limited it to constitutional silences.
Post-entry, governs: Equal access under 25(2)(b), but denomination controls worship modes.
Navigating Constitutional Tensions
Debates illuminated Article 25/26 vs. 14/15. Singhvi distinguished: Entry invokes 25(2)(b); internal rites, 26. Reforms target social discrimination, not core faith.
"The Court is bound to accept the belief of the community, and it is not for the Court to sit in judgment on that belief."
Implications for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Overruling ERP could pivot from judge-centric to community-centric religion definition, aligning with text-based limits. PIL restrictions may evolve locus standi, favoring in dangers. Sabarimala might uphold restrictions as denomination right, influencing precedents like Shirur Mutt/Durgah Committee.
Ramifications for Legal Practitioners
For advocates: Marshal community evidence over judicial theology; PIL filers face dismissal as "interlopers." Litigators in religious cases prepare subjective belief proofs. Judges: New deference standard curbs overreach, but hypotheticals warn against absolutism. Impacts ripple to secularism debates, equality claims in faith contexts.
Looking Ahead
Hearings continue, promising clarity on religion's constitutional turf. As CJI noted, invalidating millions' faith tests judiciary's wisdom. This reference may redefine India's secular fabric, prioritizing lived faith over imposed reform.
