The Supreme Court of India bench led by Surya Kant questioned arguments by J. Sai Deepak against judicial review of codified religious practices. The CJI stressed that once the State acts, courts cannot be completely excluded from reviewing its actions, even in matters of faith.
The hearing in the Supreme Court of India on the long-pending Sabarimala issue saw detailed arguments from Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, who represented multiple stakeholders including the Pandalam Royal Family and several devotee organisations. The matter arises from the landmark Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which had allowed entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple.
Appearing before a 9-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, Sai Deepak raised fundamental constitutional questions on the limits of judicial review over religious practices.
He argued in very clear terms that if a religious practice is sacred and beyond the jurisdiction of courts, then the State cannot indirectly bring it under judicial scrutiny by simply making a law around it. Explaining this principle, he relied on a well-known legal rule and said, “what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly,” stressing that courts should not test the rationality of ancient religious customs through legislative backdoors.
Responding to this argument, Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified the position of judicial review and said,
“The moment you explain the wing of the state or the executive, the power of judicial review automatically comes. If the State, in the name of social welfare, prohibits a religious practice, who will examine it?…The power of judicial review…there is no need to attack on that power so much. We understand that limitations are there…but to say that there is no power at all may also be very difficult as a proposition”.
Sai Deepak, appearing for bodies such as Pandalam Kottaram Nirvahaka Sangham, Chetana Conscience of Women, All India Organisations of Ayyappa Temples, Shirur Mutt, the Tantri of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and Chilkoor Balaji Temple, emphasized that a proper understanding of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is necessary to resolve the dispute.
He explained that Article 25(2), which allows State intervention for social reform, was always meant to limit individual rights under Article 25(1), and not the collective rights of religious denominations under Article 26. According to him, the phrase “nothing in this article” clearly shows that Article 25(2) operates only within Article 25 and does not extend to Article 26.
Further strengthening his argument, Sai Deepak submitted,
“The question of entertaining any writ petitions challenging the practices on the ground that it violates any of those subject to provisions, does not even arise simply because those powers are limited to the State.”
During the exchange, Justice B.V. Nagarathna pointed out the role of the State in enabling reforms through legislation. She said,
“If the State enables the State to make laws to bring in social reforms, for example, entry, now the question here is not…the controversy is not that the State has banned the entry as such…The state has made the law or the rule for ‘Entry’ because of the custom, there is a prohibition in the Kerala Act and rule…”
In response, Sai Deepak reiterated his core argument and stated,
“Codification of a pre-existing religious practice by the State does not make that practice amenable to judicial review because it is not an exercise of rights under 25(1) and 25(2) where limitations are imposed…The submission is of judiciary cannot, or the Courts cannot preside over constitutional challenges to practice by way of a legislation that does not make it amenable to review: this this is my humble submission…I am therefore applying the principle that what cannot be done directly can also not be done indirectly. So if you cannot get into the rationality of religious practice…”
He further argued that the term “religious denomination” should be interpreted broadly and not narrowly. According to him, it simply refers to any group of individuals sharing common religious beliefs, and the Constitution intended to protect such collective religious freedoms.
Tracing the drafting history of the Constitution, including inputs from B. R. Ambedkar, Sai Deepak said that the intention was always to ensure that religious groups are not deprived of their right to manage their own affairs.
He also explained that religious denominations enjoy two types of rights: individual-style rights under Article 25 and institutional rights under Article 26. While the State can regulate individual rights for reform, it cannot misuse that power to interfere with the internal management of religious institutions.
Sai Deepak warned that allowing such interference would violate constitutional balance and even Article 14, which guarantees equality. He cautioned against blindly adopting foreign constitutional ideas and said,
“By the time the concept of denomination travels from Ireland to India, it cannot suddenly become a higher right. That is not the case. Because the anomaly it creates is that denominational institutions would then enjoy greater protection vis-à-vis the State compared to non-denominational institutions are practically left without comparable constitutional protection, that would amount to a violation of Article 14.”
He concluded his submissions by criticising the approach taken since the 2018 judgment and said,
“My humble submission, the journey from 2018 September 28th till date is the journey of misplaced application of Constitutional morality, which is as opposed to applying the…position in terms of what the law says. When we go down the path of applying the ought position in terms of what the law must say, then we are entering the realm of policy.”
Other senior advocates also contributed important perspectives. Senior Advocate V. V. Giri argued that the right to worship is not absolute and must align with the nature of the deity, especially in the case of Lord Ayyappa, who is worshipped as a Naishtika Brahmachari.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan criticised the Essential Religious Practices doctrine, saying it forces courts to act like theological experts. He suggested replacing it with a limited “threshold test” focusing only on sincerity of belief.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, argued that the restriction on entry of women aged 10–50 at Sabarimala is not discrimination but a valid classification based on the unique nature of the deity.
Earlier, Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan had also argued that individual rights cannot override the collective rights of a religious denomination.
The Constitution Bench began hearing the matter on April 7, 2026, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta leading arguments for the Union government. He strongly criticised the earlier judgment and questioned the role of courts in examining religious beliefs, arguing that judges lack the expertise to assess matters of faith.
The case continues to raise critical constitutional questions on the balance between religious freedom, social reform, and judicial review, making it one of the most significant constitutional debates in recent years.
Click Here to Read More On Sabarimala
