The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (15 April) made significant oral observations while hearing the Sabarimala reference, cautioning that social reform measures must not erode the core of religious practices.
Background of the Case
The matter arises from the 2018 Sabarimala judgment that allowed entry of women of all age groups into the temple. The ruling led to widespread debate and multiple review petitions.
In 2019, the Court referred larger constitutional questions particularly the balance between equality and religious freedom to a nine-judge Constitution Bench.
The Bench is led by the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, and includes Justices B. V. Nagarathna, M. M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
Chief Justice Surya Kant highlighted the complexity courts face in such matters.
“The most difficult task for a court is to say that the belief of millions is wrong,” he remarked during the hearing.
Justice B. V. Nagarathna echoed this concern and issued a clear caution:
“In the name of social welfare and reform, you cannot hollow out a religion.”
Justice M. M. Sundresh also questioned whether courts can adjudicate such issues without broader representation, pointing to the scale and sensitivity of religious beliefs.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, argued for a balanced reading of constitutional provisions.
He submitted that Article 25(2)(b), which permits social reform, should not override the fundamental right to religious freedom under Article 25(1).
“Social reform cannot be interpreted in a way that diminishes the core right to religion,” Singhvi argued.
He further contended that courts should avoid deciding what constitutes “essential religious practices,” stating that such determinations risk subjective judicial interference.
Singhvi emphasized that while entry into temples can be opened to all sections, internal rituals and modes of worship should remain within the control of the religious denomination under Article 26(b).
Today the bench did not pass any final order . The hearing remained ongoing, with arguments scheduled to continue on the next day.
