The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that religious practices are subject to judicial scrutiny, and that judges must decide faith-related disputes guided by the Constitution rather than their personal religious beliefs.
The remarks came during hearings linked to the Sabarimala dispute. In 2018, a five-judge bench had allowed women aged 10 to 50 to enter the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala. Review petitions filed in 2019 were later referred by a five-judge bench led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi to a larger constitutional bench.
The current bench headed by Chief Justice Suryakant is examining broader questions on religious freedom, including issues such as women’s entry in mosques and rights of Parsi women, and has framed seven constitutional questions. The three-day hearing continued on Thursday.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued that law must apply uniformly across beliefs and matters of conscience, and that courts should aim to integrate society when divisions arise. Another counsel, Venkatesh, submitted that terms like “religion” and “religious practice” under Articles 25 and 26 have defined contours, warning that mixing religious laws with secular practices could lead to interference in essential religious practices.
The judges also raised questions on whether a person outside a faith can challenge a practice as religiously wrong, and whether courts can create a common framework around conscience, which is deeply personal. The hearing is continuing, with further arguments being advanced by senior advocate Giri.
