The Supreme Court observed that restricting temple entry to specific denominations could harm Hinduism’s inclusive nature. The remark came during the ongoing Sabarimala reference, raising key questions on religious freedom and equality.
In a significant hearing before the Supreme Court of India, the Central government on Thursday argued that restrictions in temples are not always against women alone, pointing out that there are several temples in India where men are also not allowed entry.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the traditional practice at the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. He submitted that the 2018 judgment of the apex court, which allowed entry of women of all age groups into the temple, was based on an assumption that women were treated as inferior.
“I have given instances of temples where men are not allowed. Because it is a Devi Bhagwati temple, there are certain faiths and beliefs. There are temples, details of which I have mentioned, where male priests are under a religious mandate to wash the feet of female devotees. There are temples like the Pushkar temple, the only Brahma temple in the country, where married men are not allowed. There is also a temple in Kerala where the system is that men will go dressed as women. I have read in detail, they go to beauty parlours, and their lady family members help them dress in sarees and other things. Only males go there. So it is not a question of male-centric or female-centric religious beliefs. In the present case, it happens to be woman-centric,”
Mehta said.
The matter is currently being heard by a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The Bench is examining key constitutional questions relating to religious freedom and equality.
During the hearing, Justice BV Nagarathna stressed the importance of inclusivity in religious practices and said that access to temples should not be restricted.
“If you say: ‘it is my practice, it is a matter of religion that only my section, my denomination must attend my temple and none else’, that is not good for Hinduism,”
the judge said.
Justice Aravind Kumar also observed that such restrictive practices could divide society.
Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for review petitioners, argued that certain temples, especially private ones, have traditionally restricted entry.
“Denominations also… if they want only for the denominations, they can’t seek funds from the State or the private donor or from public because they are not dependent on footfall from others. Question is whether it is contrary to the Constitutional prohibition? If it is not contrary to public order, morality and health, what would be the realistic consequences,”
he added.
He further argued that Hindu temples may face disadvantages if Article 25(2)(b), which allows social reform and opening of temples to all classes, overrides Article 26(b), which protects denominational rights to manage religious affairs.
Justice Nagarathna responded by highlighting the historical context behind such constitutional provisions, while the Chief Justice expressed doubts over the strength of the argument.
“These arguments probably will not survive for two reasons. One, what you are arguing is directly in the teeth of the language of Article 25(2)(b). Directly in the teeth of it. Assuming Article 25(2)(b) applies, you are using the argument that it will have no effect on Article 26. But Article 26 itself is subject to public order, morality and health. Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) is on principle of morality,” the CJI said.
Responding to this, Vaidyanathan stated that if a law satisfies constitutional requirements, he would not contest it further. Justice Nagarathna added another perspective:
“Another way of looking at it is this. If we restrict it to a particular denomination, it may itself be contrary to morality under Article 26.”
The present proceedings are linked to the landmark 2018 judgment of the Supreme Court, where a five-judge Bench, by a 4:1 majority, allowed women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala temple, ending the long-standing restriction on women of menstruating age. The ruling had triggered massive protests across Kerala and led to multiple review petitions.
In 2019, the Court, while hearing review petitions, decided not to give a final ruling but instead referred broader constitutional questions to a larger Bench. These include issues like the Essential Religious Practices test, the balance between Articles 25 and 26, and their interaction with the right to equality under Article 14.
During the ongoing hearing, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj explained the constitutional framework governing religious rights.
“There is a three-tier mechanism to protect, connect and regulate these rights. The first part of Article 25(1) guarantees an individual right. The second part, Article 25(2), provides the regulatory mechanism. Article 26 relates to institutional rights,”
Nataraj explained.
He further argued that determining what constitutes an essential religious practice is extremely difficult in a diverse country like India.
“Given the diversity and plurality, the principle of essential religious practice cannot be uniformly applied,”
he added.
Nataraj also emphasized that courts should have limited interference in religious matters.
“External examination is impermissible. Judicial review on whether a practice is essential, and to what extent courts can enter into such matters, has a very limited scope,”
Nataraj said.
He also highlighted the connection between devotees and deities in religious rights.
“If a devotee has a right, it relates to the deity; if the deity has a right, it relates to the devotee,”
he remarked.
Further explaining Article 25, he said:
“It has two facets—internal faith and its external manifestation. Both are equally protected,”
he said.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah raised concerns about whether external religious practices should always be protected, especially when they affect others.
“How can it be? It is fine internally, yes, that is yours. The moment your external manifestation affects the rights of others, then how can it be protected? That has to be tested,”
the judge said.
In response, Nataraj clarified:
“Subject to Part III. Part III immediately steps in.”
Justice Amanullah reiterated that external practices cannot automatically be protected simply because they stem from personal belief.
Meanwhile, Vaidyanathan explained that religious practices in temples must be respected by those who choose to visit.
“Now, take the case of Ayyappa. We do not have that rigid system. All Hindus are Hindus. But interestingly, in Sabarimala, no distinction is made. There is no bar on Christians or Muslims entering. They can also go. But they must have faith and belief in the divinity of Ayyappa,”
he added.
He further clarified:
“Under Article 25, you may have your individual belief. You are entitled to that. But if you want to go to a temple or an institution belonging to a particular sampradaya, then you must believe in that sampradaya, be part of that sampradaya, and follow its practices,”
he further said.
He also addressed the scope of Article 26(b):
“There is no prohibition regarding making any law for social reform. Like for example of somebody say there should be a Uniform Civil Code… it can be. It is for legislature to decide. Article 25(2)(b) expressly creates a kind of exclusion only in regard to the individual rights and not in regard to denominational rights,”
he added.
The matter will be taken up for further hearing on April 14. The final verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications on religious practices, gender equality, and constitutional interpretation in India.
Click Here to Read More On Women’s Entry & Religious
