Sabarimala case hearing Day 7: SC backs state reform powers

In the Sabarimala case hearing Day 7, the Supreme Court underscored the state’s authority to address social evils while examining religious freedom and women’s entry issues.

Hearing enters Day 7

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued the seventh day of hearings in the Sabarimala case, with a nine-judge Constitution bench deliberating key constitutional questions on religious freedom and social reform.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium resumed arguments, focusing on the scope of Articles 25 and 26 and the balance between individual rights and denominational autonomy.

Court on state role

During the proceedings, the Chief Justice observed that the state represents the will of the people and holds the authority to intervene when society seeks to eliminate social evils.

The bench indicated that constitutional principles could allow such intervention, especially when practices appear to conflict with fundamental rights.

Debate on religious practice

A central issue remains whether temple customs constitute essential religious practices. Subramanium argued that courts must carefully assess such claims to ensure that superstition or external elements do not gain protection as religious rights.

He said any law interfering with religion must pass a strict scrutiny test and demonstrate a clear objective linked to social reform.

Key constitutional questions

The bench examined what qualifies as “social reform” and “social welfare” under the Constitution. Justice Bagchi raised concerns about the limits of legislative power in religious matters and whether general laws can directly interfere in such domains.

The court also discussed the meaning of “management” under Article 26, including whether internal debates within a religious sect fall within its scope.

Arguments by petitioners

Subramanium emphasised that freedom of religion under Article 25 includes belief, practice, and propagation. He noted that no two individuals practise religion identically, underscoring the personal nature of faith.

He further argued that while institutions function collectively, individual freedoms remain protected, and differing opinions within a sect are part of constitutional guarantees.

Background of dispute

The Sabarimala issue stems from a long-standing restriction on women aged 10–50 entering the Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, considered a “naishtika brahmachari”.

In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld the restriction. However, in 2018, the Supreme Court of India struck it down, allowing entry to women of all ages. The verdict triggered widespread protests and multiple review petitions.

Temple authorities and some devotees continue to oppose the entry, citing religious tradition and the deity’s nature.

Earlier hearing highlights

In the previous hearings, the court questioned whether touching an idol could be considered defilement and whether constitutional protections should extend to devotees barred based on birth or lineage.

The Centre had earlier argued that courts should refrain from interfering in religious practices, pointing to similar restrictions in other temples.

What lies ahead

The nine-judge bench is currently addressing seven broader constitutional questions, including the extent of judicial review in matters of religion and the interpretation of essential religious practices.

A verdict is expected soon, which could have far-reaching implications for religious freedoms and gender equality across India. Legal observers say the ruling may redefine how courts approach conflicts between faith and fundamental rights.

As the Sabarimala case hearing Day 7 concludes, the focus remains on how the Constitution will reconcile individual rights with religious traditions in one of the country’s most closely watched public interest cases.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised critical questions over religious restrictions at the Sabarimala temple, particularly the rationale behind barring women of a certain age group. During the ongoing hearing, the court asked how the mere act of touching a deity could render it impure, highlighting concerns over exclusion based on birth and gender.

A nine-judge Constitution bench is currently examining the broader legal and constitutional principles tied to the Sabarimala dispute, making it one of the most closely watched cases in recent India News Update cycles.

Bench Questions Traditions

The bench questioned whether constitutional morality should override practices that deny individuals the right to worship. It asked whether the Constitution should intervene when devotees are prevented from offering prayers solely due to their gender or biological factors.

The judges also sought clarity on how religious customs align with fundamental rights, particularly equality and non-discrimination.

Temple’s Legal Stand

Representing the Sabarimala temple, advocate V. Giri defended the restriction, stating that temple rituals are deeply rooted in the character of the presiding deity. He argued that Lord Ayyappa is considered a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate), and therefore, the temple’s practices are designed to preserve that religious belief.

According to the counsel, any deviation from established customs would contradict the core tenets of the faith.

Background of Dispute

The Sabarimala issue has remained a significant public interest story for decades. In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld a ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the temple, citing tradition.

However, in a landmark 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court lifted the ban, allowing women of all age groups to enter. The ruling triggered widespread protests and multiple review petitions, leading to the current constitutional bench hearing.

Multiple Cases Clubbed

The court is not only examining the Sabarimala case but also hearing around 66 related matters concerning religious freedoms and practices across faiths. These include issues where entry restrictions exist in various temples and places of worship.

Sources indicated that the outcome may set a broader precedent for how courts interpret the balance between religious autonomy and fundamental rights.

Government’s Position

During earlier hearings that began on April 7, the Centre opposed unrestricted entry, arguing that similar gender-based restrictions exist in several religious institutions. It maintained that courts should respect long-standing traditions unless they clearly violate constitutional principles.

Officials suggested that religious diversity in India requires a nuanced approach rather than uniform judicial intervention.

What Lies Ahead

The Constitution bench is expected to deliver its verdict soon, possibly as early as Wednesday. The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications on religious practices, gender rights, and constitutional interpretation.

Legal experts believe the ruling could redefine how courts handle faith-based customs in the future, making it a key development in national and international news discourse.

As the hearing concludes, the Supreme Court’s observations on the Sabarimala issue remain central to debates on equality, religious freedom, and evolving social norms in India.

Supreme Court questions Sabarimala women entry ban, examines religious practices and constitutional rights in a major India News Update.

Govt Seeks Scrapping of PIL as SC Hears Sabarimala Case Day 3

A nine-judge Constitution bench continues hearing on women’s entry into religious places; Centre argues PIL concept has outlived its utility.

Nine-Judge Bench Resumes Hearing  

The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Constitution bench convened for the third consecutive day on Thursday to hear cases relating to discrimination against women at religious places. The lead matter remains the ban on women’s entry into Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, alongside four other sensitive religious practices. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is examining petitions that have remained pending for over 26 years.

Centre Calls PIL Outdated  

In a sharp submission before the court, the central government questioned the very utility of public interest litigation. Written arguments filed by the government stated that “the time has come to not only define PILs, but to eliminate them altogether.” The government argued that PIL was conceived when poverty and illiteracy prevented large sections from accessing courts. With e-filing and technological advancements, the Centre claimed, such constraints no longer exist, making PIL redundant.

SG Mehta Challenges Previous Verdicts  

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, went a step further. He told the bench that the Supreme Court’s decisions decriminalising adultery and consensual homosexual acts were “not sound law.” According to Mehta, those rulings were based on personal interpretations of “constitutional morality” and should not be treated as binding precedents for 1.4 billion Indians. He cited a Harvard Law Review article to argue that democratic majority viewpoint must prevail.

Court Questions Devotee Status  

As the hearing progressed, Justice B.V. Nagarathna raised a critical question. She asked Mehta who the original petitioners in the Sabarimala case were. The solicitor general replied that the petition was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association. Justice Nagarathna then observed, “They are not devotees. If someone who is not a devotee and has nothing to do with the temple challenges it, can the court hear such a writ petition?” The query pointed to a fundamental debate on locus standi in religious matters.

Five Cases Under Scrutiny  

The nine-judge bench is not limiting itself to Sabarimala. The hearings cover five specific issues: entry of women into Sabarimala temple, female circumcision in the Dawoodi Bohra community, women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women’s entry into the Agiyari (fire temple), and questions of gender discrimination in Muslim personal law. Each matter involves competing claims of religious freedom and constitutional rights to equality.

26-Year Legal Battle  

The legal fight over Sabarimala dates back nearly three decades. In 2018, a five-judge bench by a 4:1 majority lifted the ban on women of menstruating age entering the temple. More than 50 review petitions followed, leading the court to refer the matter to a larger nine-judge bench. Hearings are scheduled from April 7 to April 22. Supporters of the review petitions are presenting arguments from April 7 to 9, while opposing parties will get their turn from April 14 to 16.

Next Phase of Arguments  

Chief Justice Surya Kant made it clear that courts remain cautious while entertaining PILs. “The situation has changed over two decades from 2006 to 2026. Notices are issued only when there is a solid basis,” he observed. The bench is expected to continue hearing detailed submissions on whether secular courts can decide what constitutes superstition within a religion. A final verdict from the nine-judge bench could reshape the law on religious practices and public interest litigation in India for decades to come.