Sabarimala reference hearing concludes; Supreme Court reserves judgment
Courts cannot give up their duty to review religious practices, says CJI
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, has reserved its judgment on the Sabarimala review petitions. The core issue revolves around the balance between the fundamental right to religion and the right to equality, specifically concerning the entry of women of menstruating age into the Ayyappa shrine. The hearings also expanded to include other religious practices deemed discriminatory, such as the entry of Muslim women into mosques and Parsi women into Agiary after inter-faith marriages.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This case is a classic example of the tension between Freedom of Religion and Right to Equality. The Supreme Court is tasked with defining the contours of (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and (freedom to manage religious affairs) against (equality before law) and (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth). The concept of 'Essential Religious Practices' (ERP) doctrine, developed by the Supreme Court to identify practices essential to a religion and thus protected under the Constitution, is under scrutiny. The nine-judge bench's decision will clarify whether courts should intervene in religious matters to usher in social reform or defer to religious denominations. The amicus curiae's argument that religious rights should not be judged solely on rationality highlights the complexity of adjudicating matters of faith. UPSC often tests the interplay of fundamental rights; understanding how the Court balances religious autonomy with individual liberty, especially concerning gender equality, is crucial for Mains answers on secularism and constitutional morality.
Social
The Sabarimala issue brings to the forefront the deeply ingrained patriarchal norms within religious traditions. The initial ban on women aged 10-50 was based on the notion of purity and the celibate nature of the deity, reflecting systemic discrimination against women based on biological functions. The expansion of the review to include the rights of Muslim women to enter mosques and Parsi women to enter the Agiary underscores that gender discrimination in religious practices is not confined to one community. This intersectionality of gender and religion requires a nuanced understanding for GS Paper 1 (Society) and GS Paper 2 (Social Justice). The State's role, as mandated by the Constitution, is to ensure social welfare and reform, but the judiciary's intervention in deeply held religious beliefs is a sensitive topic. The judgment will set a precedent for how a secular democracy navigates the clash between tradition and modern constitutional values of gender justice.
Governance
The observation by Chief Justice Surya Kant that the judiciary cannot give up its duty to judicially review religious practices touches upon the crucial doctrine of Separation of Powers. While the primary responsibility for social reform and welfare lies with the legislature (Parliament and State Assemblies), the judiciary acts as the ultimate protector of fundamental rights. The Court must determine if religious practices violate fundamental liberties and whether they fall under the exception of 'public order, morality, and health' in . The debate centers on judicial activism versus judicial restraint—should the court act as an 'overzealous reformer' or respect religious autonomy? The decision will also define the scope of a 'religious denomination' under and whether a particular group has the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion without State interference. This touches on the broader governance challenge of maintaining harmony in a multi-religious society while upholding universal human rights.