Today, On 14th May, The Supreme Court has now reserved its judgment in the long-pending Sabarimala reference after an intensive 16-day hearing before a nine-judge Bench. Led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, the Bench reconsidered constitutional questions tied to the 2018 ruling.
The Supreme Court of India observed that Hinduism is a way of life, not dependent on rituals. It clarified that a person identifying as Hindu need not visit temples or perform religious ceremonies to still continue being Hindu.
The Supreme Court of India observed that if every religious practice or ritual is challenged before constitutional courts, it could lead to excessive litigation, weakening religions and affecting India’s civilizational fabric, while stressing that religion remains deeply connected with the country’s social structure.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court asked how the law should treat a non-believer seeking entry to a religious place, noting it must assess whether the claimant is a devotee or non-devotee while examining petitions on Sabarimala.
The Supreme Court rebuked an advocate in the Sabarimala reference hearing for irrelevant submissions, saying he was going beyond the subject and must confine arguments to the issue. The Court also said, “Please don’t argue like this,” during proceedings.
The Supreme Court said there can be no anarchy, noting that managing religious institutions cannot mean operating without structure, and emphasised the need for rules as the nine-judge Bench heard petitions on Sabarimala women’s entry and religious freedom.
Allahabad High Court refused to quash the case against two Class 12 Muslim girls accused of attempting to convert their Hindu classmate. The Bench said forced religious conversion allegations among youngsters were “particularly disturbing” and required judicial consideration.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025. The plea argues that the new law violates fundamental rights and requires urgent judicial scrutiny to assess its constitutional fairness.
Today, On 9th April, The Centre told the Supreme Court it supports keeping the ban on women of menstruating age entering Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, arguing the 2018 ruling relied on a premise that places men above women and treats them as inferior.
The Centre informed the Supreme Court that the landmark rulings decriminalising adultery and consensual same-sex relationships were based on a subjective interpretation of “constitutional morality” and should now be declared “not a good law” by the Court.
