The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing a batch of cases linked to the Sabarimala issue, with a nine-judge Constitution Bench examining key questions on religious freedom and equality.
The bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, is not directly reviewing the 2018 judgement that allowed entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple. Instead, it is dealing with broader constitutional questions about how courts should approach religious practices under Articles 25 and 26.
Opening the Centre’s arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said courts should be cautious in deciding what counts as an essential religious practice. He argued that religion can only be restricted on limited grounds such as public order, morality, health, or if it violates fundamental rights.
Mehta said determining whether a practice is essential to a religion may not always fall within judicial review. He pointed out that religious texts and beliefs require interpretation by scholars and that courts may not be best placed to undertake such an exercise.
The discussion centres on the practice at Sabarimala, where girls and women aged between 10 and 50 years have traditionally not been allowed entry, based on the belief that Lord Ayyappa is a celibate deity. The Centre argued that this is a matter of faith and not a question of discrimination.
The judges, however, raised several questions during the hearing. Justice B.V. Nagarathna said courts can step in if a social practice is presented as a religious one. She noted that it is important to distinguish between genuine religious practices and social customs.
The Centre also told the court that the Sabarimala temple is a unique case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said Ayyappa temples elsewhere allow entry of women, but Sabarimala follows a specific practice linked to a particular age group. He said such denominational practices need to be respected and cannot always be tested only on the basis of individual dignity or autonomy.
During the hearing, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned whether the exclusion could be compared to untouchability under Article 17. She pointed out that untouchability cannot be applied in a selective manner, observing that it cannot exist for a few days and disappear on others.
The Solicitor General also objected to observations in the 2018 judgment that had described the practice as treating women as untouchables. He said this characterisation was incorrect and added that Indian society cannot be viewed only through the lens of patriarchy.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether a group’s belief about a form of worship leading to salvation can be tested against the principle of equality. He also said courts are capable of examining expert opinions in complex matters, including those involving religion.
Justice M.M. Sundresh highlighted the difference between science and religion, noting that religion is based on belief rather than logic. This, he suggested, makes judicial review more limited in such matters.
The Centre also argued that Sabarimala devotees form a distinct group whose practices should be protected under the Constitution. It said India’s religious traditions are diverse and cannot be narrowly defined.
At the same time, Mehta stressed that courts can intervene in extreme cases. He said if a practice clearly violates morality or fundamental rights, judicial review would still apply.
The Centre also argued that the restriction at Sabarimala cannot be seen as discrimination. Solicitor General referred to Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion to all persons, and said the phrase includes different classes and sections. He said the provision was meant to address caste-based exclusion, and not every restriction linked to a religious belief can be treated as discrimination. According to him, prohibiting entry of a particular gender within a specific age group, based on the nature of the deity and the temple’s practice, does not automatically violate constitutional rights.
He also reiterated that social reform should be left to the legislature. Mehta said any change in religious practices must come from within the community or through laws made by elected representatives. He pointed out that Parliament and State Assemblies reflect the views of citizens, making them better suited to handle questions of reform rather than courts.
The outcome of the case is expected to clarify how courts should balance religious freedom with constitutional principles such as equality and dignity.
The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue April 8.