Arguments in the Sabarimala matter continued before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which is examining key questions linked to religious rights and freedoms arising from petitions seeking entry for women of all ages at the Ayyappa temple.
On the eighth day of hearings, advocate Radhakrishnan, appearing for the Pandalam royal family, submitted that while the court’s authority is unquestionable, it should proceed with calm restraint when it comes to intervening in religious rituals and traditions.
He also contended that those who filed the petitions were not genuine devotees or people of faith, and alleged that they had circulated derogatory remarks about Lord Ayyappa.
Justice Jaymalya Bagchi intervened to ask how a practice can be verified as religious in nature, noting the large number of practices within Hinduism and questioning what standard should be used to test them.
Senior advocate Jayant Muthuraj responded by citing an example from Saivism, arguing that devotion can take forms outside common rituals, and maintained that the court need not determine whether a ritual is an essential part of religion. The hearing was adjourned to April 28.
