Watch: Sabarimala case: How did it begin and where is it now?
The Supreme Court of India has now begun final hearings in the long-running Sabarimala case. A nine-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant is hearing a batch of petitions that go beyond just one temple. At the core, the court is looking at a much larger question. To what extent can courts intervene in matters of religion? And what exactly counts as an essential religious practice 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 Bench of the , led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, has commenced final hearings originating from the review petitions. The core issue transcends the specific temple's customs, focusing on the broader constitutional question of how far courts can intervene in religious affairs. The Bench is tasked with determining the scope of 'essential religious practices' under of the Constitution.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion through (individual right to profess, practice, and propagate religion) and (freedom to manage religious affairs). However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. A central constitutional conflict arises when religious customs clash with the Right to Equality () and the Right to Non-Discrimination (). In the Sabarimala context, the prohibition of women of menstruating age was challenged as a violation of women's fundamental rights. UPSC aspirants must analyze this delicate constitutional balance, where the state acts as both a protector of minority rights and a catalyst for social reform. The current nine-judge bench reference aims to harmonise these conflicting constitutional guarantees across various religions.
Judiciary
The doctrine of Essential Religious Practice is a judicial innovation first established by the in the 1954 . According to this doctrine, the court protects only those practices that are fundamental to a religion, while secular or non-essential practices can be regulated by the state. The ongoing hearings are crucial because the court is re-evaluating the bounds of judicial review (the power of courts to examine the constitutionality of actions) in theological matters. Critics argue that judges lack the theological expertise to decide what is 'essential' to a faith, potentially overstepping into the religious domain. The outcome of this case will set a profound precedent on whether constitutional morality should override long-standing religious customs.
Social
At the intersection of religion and society lies the enduring debate between traditional customs and modern principles of gender justice. Historically, certain religious practices have been inherently exclusionary, often disproportionately affecting women's rights. The original 2018 judgment regarding the , which allowed women of all ages to enter the shrine, highlighted the judiciary's role in dismantling patriarchal traditions masquerading as religious necessity. However, it also sparked massive social unrest, demonstrating the deep-rooted nature of religious sentiments. From a sociological perspective, this judicial examination forces society to confront how traditional institutions align with modern democratic values. Aspirants should note how social reform in India has often been driven top-down through constitutional courts rather than through organic societal consensus.