A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court has started hearing key petitions on women’s entry into religious places, including Sabarimala Temple. The case will decide the balance between gender equality and religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday began hearing a crucial batch of petitions dealing with alleged discrimination against women at religious places, including the famous Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. The case is expected to have far-reaching implications on how religious freedom is interpreted under the Constitution across different faiths in India.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the matter.
Before the hearing started, the Union Government submitted its written arguments. The Centre requested the Court to support the restriction on entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple. It argued that such issues fall strictly within religious beliefs and the autonomy of denominations, and should not be interfered with by courts.
This case traces back to the landmark 2018 judgment, where a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, removed the ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple. The Court had then declared that the centuries-old practice was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
However, in 2019, a five-judge bench led by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a larger bench. The Court felt that broader constitutional questions on religious freedom across multiple religions needed deeper examination.
The reference was not limited to Sabarimala. It also included issues such as the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, and whether Parsi women married to non-Parsi men can enter the sacred fire temples (Agiary).
Later, on May 11, 2020, the Supreme Court clarified that even while exercising its review powers, a Constitution Bench has the authority to refer important legal questions to a larger bench for final decision.
Earlier this year, on February 16, the Court announced that final hearings would begin on April 7 and are likely to continue until April 22.
During earlier proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, supported the review petitions challenging the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.
The Court has framed seven key constitutional questions that it will examine during the hearing. Importantly, it also said that these questions can be modified if required. The bench observed that it would consider
“what is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?”
On the second issue, the Court said,
“What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26?”
The third question deals with whether denominational rights under Article 26 are subject to other fundamental rights beyond public order, morality, and health.
Raising a critical constitutional concern, the bench asked,
“What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality’ under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?”
The Court also said it would examine the “scope and extent of judicial review,” in matters related to religious practices under Article 25.
Another key issue framed by the Court is,
“What is the meaning of the expression “sections of Hindus” occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?”
Finally, the bench will decide whether individuals who do not belong to a particular religious group can challenge its practices through PILs. It framed the question as whether a person outside a religious denomination can question its customs in court.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Stays ‘Punyam Poonkavanam’ Project at Sabarimala Temple
The Court emphasised that it will need to develop a clear judicial approach to ensure “substantial and complete justice” in cases involving religious freedom, especially where practices restrict women’s entry into places of worship across different religions.
This case is being closely watched as it will define the balance between gender equality, religious freedom, and constitutional morality in India, and could set a major precedent for future disputes involving faith and fundamental rights.
Click Here to Read More On Women’s Entry & Religious
