Supreme Court examines religious rights in Sabarimala case
The Supreme Court is currently examining the Sabarimala case through a fresh referral before a nine‑judge Constitution Bench, with a central focus on how far religious customs can override constitutional rights such as equality and non‑discrimination.
What the Court is reviewing
The referral arises out of the Court’s 2018 decision (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala), in which a 5‑judge Bench held by a 4:1 majority that the exclusion of women of menstruating age from Sabarimala violated Article 25 (freedom of religion) and could not be justified as an “essential religious practice” of the temple.
Now, the nine‑judge Bench is reconsidering key questions such as the scope of the “essential religious practice” test, the limits of judicial intervention into deeply held religious beliefs, and whether the Court’s earlier ruling improperly “hollowed out” religion in the name of social welfare and reform.
Key religious‑rights issues in contention
-
The State and the temple management argue that longstanding ritual‑centric practices (like celibacy‑linked restrictions at Sabarimala) are integral to the identity of that denomination and that courts should not easily treat them as discriminatory.
-
Women‑petitioners and equality‑rights advocates contend that any exclusion based on biological features (such as menstruation) violates Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non‑discrimination), and 25 (right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion).
Broader constitutional implications
The hearing is framed as a “faith vs equality” exercise, with the Bench also hearing related references on issues such as women’s access to Parsi temples, mosque entries, and excommunication powers of religious bodies.
Observers expect the final judgment to significantly recalibrate the balance between Article 25–26 (religious freedom) and Articles 14–15 (equality and non‑discrimination), potentially affecting numerous other religious‑practice disputes across India.
