The Muslim Personal Law Board told the Supreme Court that courts should not decide the “essential religious practices” of any religion. The 9-judge Bench will hear the Sabarimala review case from April 7, 2026, on the scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has made important submissions before the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala review matter, where a 9-judge Constitution Bench is set to commence hearing from April 7, 2026.
The Board has argued that courts should not decide what is an essential religious practice and what is not, because religions have different practices and beliefs, and these matters should be left to religious scholars and followers of the religion.
The AIMPLB submitted that different religions, and even different groups within the same religion, may follow different practices depending on circumstances, traditions, and beliefs. Therefore, it is not appropriate for courts to examine and decide which practice is essential to a religion.
The Board stated, “The core of religion” principle cannot be the principle of law to apply for the purpose of exercising rights under Article 25, the mandate of which is to recognise the freedom of religious beliefs. Religions may have different practices relatable to different aspects within the same religion.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the courts must not attempt to judicially determine the nature of religious practices. While dealing with Article 25, to interpret what is religious practice or for that matter, core of the religion within the meaning of essential religious practices, these matters must be left for those who are scholars in religion or the religious denominations and/or the belief of the followers of that particular religion.
Certain practices change with circumstances, like in Hajj manner of Namaz and many other acts commonly done by the followers of Islam get altered completely. The Namaz which is offered at the time of burial of a follower of Islam is completely different from what is offered normally.”
The submissions were filed by Senior Advocate MR Shamshad and Advocate-on-Record Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi. The Board argued that instead of courts deciding essential religious practices, the focus should be on understanding the meaning of public order and secular activity in matters related to religion. It emphasized that freedom of religion is a fundamental part of a democratic society and not a gift given by the State.
The AIMPLB stated,
“Freedom of faith and religion is an integral part of social structure. Such freedom is not a bounty of the State but constitutes the very foundation on which the superstructure of a democratic State is erected. Religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has its outward expression in acts as well. Hence, the right to practice one’s religion would include actions and observances believed to be religious by the follower of a religion or which, as a custom or practice, has continued for a long period of time.”
The Board also argued that the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine has created problems because it forces people to prove in court that a particular practice is essential to their religion, instead of requiring the State to justify why it is restricting a religious practice.
According to the Board, the idea of determining the “core of religion” is subjective and depends on who is making that determination and what sources they rely on. It stated, “the core of religion” appears to be an exercise which creates the scope of interference in the understanding of the matters of religion.
The process of determination of the core of religion itself is very subjective and depends on various factors. Like who is seeking to determine, whether he is a believer in religion or not, whether he or she has read and understood the original text of the religion or only remained dependent on translations of the said text by different intermediaries.”
On the issue of gender and religion, the AIMPLB submitted that these identities should not be seen as opposing each other. It argued that a woman can believe in religion and also exercise her autonomy and rights at the same time.
ALSO READ: New CJI-Led Nine-Judge Constitution Bench to Deliberate Key Cases
The submission states,
“While determining the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution, this Hon’ble Court ought to recognise that gender and religion cannot be treated as neatly separable identities or social spaces. These identities are often intertwined and exist in constant dialogue with one another; they do not operate in isolation. A woman may believe in God, simultaneously assert her autonomy and choose to express her faith through religious belief and practice. In such circumstances, gender and religion coexist rather than stand in opposition. It is this lived co-existence of identities that this Hon’ble Court ought to bear in mind while adjudicating the present matter.”
The Board also warned that sometimes government policies may appear neutral but can indirectly discriminate against certain religions. It gave examples such as land allotment policies based on population and rules like “sunrise to sunset” access to monuments, which may affect some religions more than others.
It further stated,
“The State’s tolerance of religion or religions, does not make it either a religious or a theocratic state.7 However, if a State makes a policy where tolerance of one religion is found inbuilt in it but, due to diverse practices of different religion, the other religious practices do not fit into that scheme. That is where persons belonging to the excluded religious practices feel discriminated on a facially and apparently neutral policy, but at the same time carrying unequal traits. Considering the fact that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, these policies must be framed considering the element of tolerance towards diverse practices of different religions”.
The AIMPLB also emphasized that Article 25 gives all persons the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, but this right is subject to public order, morality, and health. However, the Board cautioned that these grounds should not be misused by the State to interfere in religious matters. It stated that public order should not be confused with law and order, and morality should be balanced with religious beliefs and practices.
The Board further argued that equality in matters of religion should be understood in a substantive manner, meaning that different religions may require different treatment to ensure real equality. It submitted that even neutral policies should not result in indirect discrimination against any religion.
It also argued that the determination of essential religious practices is a complex issue involving religious teachings and beliefs, and therefore courts should avoid deciding what is essential to a religion.
In conclusion, the AIMPLB urged the Supreme Court to ensure that while interpreting Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the principles adopted should protect equal religious freedom for all religions and denominations. It also requested the Court to clearly define the scope of public order, morality, and secular activity so that the State does not get unlimited power to interfere in religious matters under these grounds.
Also Read: [Sabarimala Entry] Kerala HC Rejected 10-yr-old Girl’s Plea
The State of Kerala has also filed its submissions in the case and stated that courts should interfere in long-standing religious practices only after wide consultations with religious scholars and social reformers of that particular faith. The Travancore Devaswom Board also submitted that the Court should accept the beliefs of the community and should not sit in judgment over those beliefs.
The matter will now be heard by the 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court starting April 7, 2026, in the Sabarimala review case titled Kantaru Rajeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Association and Sabarimala Custom Protection Forum vs Indian Young Lawyers Association.
Click Here to Read More Reports On the Sabarimala Review
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
