Sabarimala case: Supreme Court flags risks of courts intervening in religion
In the ongoing Sabarimala review hearings, the Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged the risks of excessive judicial intervention in religious matters, warning that courts cannot “hollow out” or “annihilate” religion in the name of reform.
What the Court has said
-
A nine‑judge Bench has stressed that one of the most difficult tasks for a court is to declare the deep‑seated beliefs of millions of people “erroneous”, and that faith and belief‑based questions lie largely outside the domain of courtroom disputation.
-
Several judges have cautioned that if every individual is allowed to pick and choose religious practices selectively, the very concept of religion may be undermined, calling such an approach a possible “disaster” for religion itself.
Limits on judicial reform
-
The Court has held that while religious practices are open to constitutional scrutiny under Articles 14, 15 and 25, social‑reform–driven judicial intervention must stop short of dismantling a religion’s core or “essential practices”.
-
The Bench is actively examining the broader constitutional question of how far courts can intervene in faith, including the validity of Public Interest Litigations filed by non‑adherents in purely religious disputes.
Implications for the Sabarimala dispute
-
The earlier 2018 verdict struck down the ban on women aged 10–50 entering the Sabarimala temple as violative of equality and dignity.
-
In the current hearing the Court is reconsidering whether the exclusion can be treated as an “essential religious practice” protected by Article 25, while simultaneously tightening the doctrinal limits on how courts should define and regulate such practices.
