Sabarimala row: SC asserts judicial review over religious practices

In the ongoing Sabarimala row, the Supreme Court and Centre differ on courts’ role in assessing religious practices and alleged discrimination

Hearing Continues in SC

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued hearing the long-standing Sabarimala row, focusing on whether courts can examine religious practices and label them as superstition. The proceedings, before a nine-judge Constitution bench, saw sharp exchanges between the Centre and the judiciary on the scope of judicial review.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that secular courts lack the expertise to determine what constitutes superstition in matters of faith. However, the bench maintained that constitutional courts retain the authority to examine such practices, especially where fundamental rights are involved.

Govt vs Court Stand

Presenting the Centre’s position, Mehta said religious practices vary widely across India’s diverse communities and should not be judged by courts using a uniform standard. He cautioned that labelling practices as superstition could lead to unintended consequences in a plural society.

The bench, however, pushed back. Justice Amanullah observed that courts have the power of judicial review and cannot be excluded entirely from examining religious practices. “The final determination cannot rest solely with the legislature,” the court noted during the exchange.

Debate on Discrimination

A key issue in the Sabarimala row remains alleged discrimination against women. The bench repeatedly underlined that constitutional guarantees of equality cannot be ignored.

Justice B. V. Nagarathna questioned whether denying entry to women on the basis of menstruation could be equated with untouchability, which is abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution.

The government countered that the Sabarimala tradition cannot be equated with caste-based untouchability and argued that not all religious restrictions violate fundamental rights.

Essential Religious Practice

The hearing also revisited the doctrine of “Essential Religious Practice” (ERP), which determines whether a practice qualifies for constitutional protection.

Mehta argued that courts should refrain from deciding what is essential to a religion, as this would require interpreting scriptures and beliefs—tasks beyond judicial competence.

The bench acknowledged the complexity but indicated that courts may still examine practices if they conflict with public order, morality, or health.

Background of Case

The Sabarimala row dates back decades, centred on the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, where women aged 10 to 50 were traditionally barred from entry.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in a 4:1 majority verdict, allowed entry of women of all ages, calling the ban unconstitutional. The ruling triggered widespread protests across Kerala.

Subsequently, over 50 review petitions were filed, leading to the current hearings before a larger bench examining broader constitutional questions.

Wider Constitutional Questions

The present proceedings extend beyond Sabarimala and include issues such as women’s entry into mosques, Parsi fire temples, and practices in other religions.

The bench is examining how Articles 25 and 26—guaranteeing religious freedom—interact with Articles 14, 15, and 17, which ensure equality and prohibit discrimination.

Judges indicated that while religious autonomy is protected, it cannot override constitutional morality in cases of clear discrimination.

What Lies Ahead

The hearings are scheduled to continue until April 22, with different sets of petitioners presenting arguments in phases. A final ruling is expected to clarify the balance between religious freedom and fundamental rights.

The outcome of the Sabarimala row is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases across India, shaping how courts interpret faith-based practices in the context of constitutional values.

As the debate unfolds, the case remains a significant public interest story and a key India News Update, closely tracked across legal and policy circles.

The sequel to the controversial 2023 blockbuster has ignited fresh debates over forced conversions, religious symbolism, and creative freedom just days before its theatrical debut.

The trailer for 'The Kerala Story 2' dropped on February 17, and within hours, the controversy machine was running at full throttle again. The sequel to the 2023 surprise hit is now facing intense backlash over specific scenes, political condemnation, legal challenges, and a very public war of words between its director and Bollywood filmmaker Anurag Kashyap.

Set to release in theatres on February 27, the film arrives amid familiar yet heightened tensions surrounding its predecessor's core themes of religious conversion and radicalisation.

What Sparked the Latest Controversy?

The trailer's most contentious moment involves a scene where a character is allegedly pressured to eat beef—a sequence critics argue is designed to portray a particular community negatively while reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

Supporters of the film, however, defend the scene as symbolic storytelling meant to depict the character's internal conflict and transformation. Given that beef consumption remains one of India's most politically and culturally sensitive topics—deeply intertwined with religious identity—the sequence has become ground zero for the current debate.

Political Leaders Speak Out

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who had previously criticised the original film's narrative, has reiterated his concerns. State leadership argues that such portrayals unfairly target Kerala's image and promote misinformation about the region's social fabric.

"We cannot allow cinema to become a vehicle for distorting reality and damaging the harmonious coexistence that defines our state," a statement from the Chief Minister's office read, echoing sentiments expressed during the first film's release in 2023.

Bollywood's Divided House

Anurag Kashyap Calls It Propaganda

Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap didn't mince words when addressing the project. He openly questioned the intention behind revisiting such sensitive themes, suggesting the sequel crosses the line from storytelling into propaganda territory.

Kamakhya Narayan Singh Fires Back

Director Kamakhya Narayan Singh hit back at Kashyap's criticism, alleging that the acclaimed filmmaker has a problem with everything that doesn't align with his worldview. The exchange has split the film fraternity, with some supporting creative freedom while others worry about mainstreaming divisive content.

Actor Prakash Raj also weighed in, expressing concern that such narratives are becoming increasingly mainstream without encouraging meaningful dialogue between communities.

Legal Trouble Brewing

A petition has reportedly been filed in the Kerala High Court seeking cancellation of the censor certificate granted to the film. Petitioners question whether the Central Board of Film Certification adequately evaluated the potential impact on public harmony before clearing the project for release.

The legal challenge argues that the film could incite tension and disturb law and order in an already sensitive communal environment. Activists contend that given India's current social climate, films dealing with religion and extremism must be handled with greater responsibility.

The Original's Shadow Looms Large

To understand the current backlash, one must revisit 'The Kerala Story' (2023). The original film claimed to depict women from Kerala who were allegedly converted and recruited by ISIS. Its teaser initially stated that 32,000 women had gone missing and joined the terror group—a figure that triggered immediate outrage.

Political leaders and fact-checkers pointed out there was no verified data supporting such a massive claim. Following criticism, the makers modified their description, reducing focus to three women and calling it a "fictionalised account inspired by true events." The Supreme Court eventually allowed its release but mandated a disclaimer clarifying it was a fictionalised story without confirmed data.

The Bigger Debate: Freedom vs Responsibility

The controversy surrounding 'The Kerala Story 2' has reignited a fundamental question that refuses to go away:

Should filmmakers have complete creative freedom, or should stricter scrutiny apply when films touch upon religion and national security?

Supporters of the film call it bold and necessary storytelling that addresses uncomfortable truths. Critics label it divisive and dangerous, arguing that dramatised storytelling influences public perception and creates mistrust between communities.

Where exactly is the line between raising awareness and pushing an agenda? That's the question audiences, activists, and policymakers are grappling with as the February 27 release date approaches.

What Happens Next?

The film's ultimate impact may depend on how audiences interpret it once it hits theatres. But one thing is certain: 'The Kerala Story 2' has already succeeded in becoming more than just a movie. It's now a flashpoint in India's ongoing conversation about politics, freedom of expression, media narratives, and social harmony.