SC hearing on Sabarimala women entry LIVE: Nine-judge Bench to hear pleas on religious discrimination against women
The Bench has said it would also examine the "scope and extent of judicial review," concerning a religious practice as referred under Article 25 of the Constitution
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 has commenced final hearings on the complex conflict between gender equality and religious freedom, which originally stems from the landmark 2018 verdict. The court is tasked with deciding whether constitutional morality can override ancient religious customs, and the stakes extend far beyond a single shrine. By taking up this matter, the judiciary aims to create a definitive constitutional framework to resolve clashes between individual fundamental rights and the autonomy of religious denominations across all faiths in India.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The core constitutional conflict in this case lies in the constant friction between the right to equality under and non-discrimination under , versus the freedom of religion guaranteed by and the autonomy to manage religious affairs under . In its 2018 judgment, a 4:1 majority of the prioritized individual fundamental rights, striking down specific rules that barred women of menstruating age from the . The majority ruled that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination. However, dissenting voices and review petitioners argue that religious communities have the absolute right to manage their own internal affairs under . They assert that applying secular concepts of Constitutional Morality to deeply held matters of faith constitutes an impermissible form of judicial overreach. For UPSC aspirants, this highlights the intricate balancing act the judiciary must maintain: protecting individual citizens from systemic discrimination while simultaneously respecting the autonomy and pluralism of diverse religious denominations in a secular, democratic republic.
Governance & Legal
A central theme of the ongoing hearing is the highly debated Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, which was first articulated by the judiciary in the landmark 1954 . Under this legal doctrine, courts historically assess whether a specific ritual or tradition is fundamentally integral to a religion to decide if it merits strict constitutional protection. The Union government, alongside various religious bodies, has strongly opposed courts acting as theological experts. They argue that Hinduism's pluralistic and diverse nature defies rigid, strait-jacket definitions of what constitutes a 'religious denomination' or an 'essential practice.' They contend that secular judges are fundamentally ill-equipped to determine the essentiality of ancient customs, which should be viewed strictly through the lens of the faithful. The 9-judge bench's final ruling will legally redefine the absolute limits of judicial review in religious matters, establishing a binding precedent on whether the ERP test should be comprehensively reformed, narrowed, or abandoned altogether in favor of a new jurisprudential approach.
Social
While the primary catalyst for these hearings was the specific dispute, the broader socio-legal implications extend to addressing structural gender discrimination across multiple faiths in India. The expanded scope of the bench deliberately includes adjudicating the right of Muslim women to enter mosques and dargahs, the rights of Parsi women who marry outside their faith to access sacred fire temples, and the controversial legality of female genital mutilation (FGM) among the Dawoodi Bohra community. By clubbing these diverse issues together, the is confronting a universal societal challenge: the deep intersection of patriarchal traditions and entrenched religious orthodoxy. For the Indian Society and Social Justice syllabus, this represents a potential watershed moment where the state might establish a uniform, progressive standard for women's rights. The outcome will likely ensure that the constitutional shield of religious freedom can no longer be systematically used to justify gender-based exclusionary practices, thereby advancing the ultimate goal of substantive gender equality.