Judiciary – Supreme Court Asserts Authority Over Religious Practices Review
Judiciary – The Supreme Court on Wednesday reaffirmed its authority to examine and, if necessary, invalidate religious practices or customs that conflict with constitutional principles. The court made it clear that even long-standing traditions rooted in faith cannot remain beyond scrutiny if they undermine public order, health, or morality.
Bench Rejects Centre’s Stand on Judicial Limits
A nine-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, was hearing a set of review petitions related to the Sabarimala case. During the proceedings, the court dismissed the Centre’s argument that secular courts should not evaluate religious practices, including those considered superstitious.
Representing the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that determining whether a belief qualifies as superstition should not fall within the judiciary’s domain. He maintained that under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, the responsibility to introduce reforms lies with the legislature. According to his submission, courts should refrain from intervening in such matters, even when practices appear outdated or controversial.
Court Emphasises Role of Constitutional Principles
The bench, however, did not accept this reasoning. It underlined that the judiciary has an essential role in ensuring that all practices—religious or otherwise—comply with constitutional values. The judges observed that allowing the legislature alone to decide such issues would weaken the system of checks and balances.
The court stressed that it cannot avoid its responsibility to assess whether a practice violates fundamental rights or constitutional norms. It rejected the notion that the legislature has the final say in these matters, reinforcing that judicial review remains a cornerstone of constitutional governance.
Debate Over Constitutional Morality
Another point of contention during the hearing was the use of “constitutional morality” as a guiding principle. The Centre argued that earlier Supreme Court rulings, including those on decriminalising consensual same-sex relations and striking down adultery laws, relied too heavily on this doctrine. Mehta described those judgments as flawed, suggesting that constitutional morality should not be used to define essential religious practices.
The bench did not directly endorse this criticism but indicated that constitutional values cannot be ignored when evaluating practices that affect fundamental rights. The discussion highlighted an ongoing debate about the extent to which courts should interpret and apply evolving social and moral standards.
Questions on Who Can Challenge Religious Practices
The bench also raised concerns about the eligibility of petitioners challenging religious customs. It questioned how individuals who are not followers of Lord Ayyappa could contest traditions associated with the Sabarimala temple.
This issue has been central to the case since 2018, when the Supreme Court ruled that women between the ages of 10 and 50 could not be barred from entering the temple. That judgment followed a petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, which argued that the restriction violated constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
Background of the Sabarimala Case
The original verdict triggered widespread debate across the country, with strong opinions both in favour of and against the decision. Supporters viewed it as a step toward gender equality, while critics argued that it interfered with a deeply rooted religious tradition.
The current proceedings involve multiple review petitions seeking reconsideration of that ruling. The court is now examining broader questions about the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights, as well as the extent of judicial intervention in matters of faith.
Implications for Future Cases
The observations made by the bench suggest that the court intends to retain its authority to evaluate religious practices when constitutional concerns arise. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for similar disputes in the future, particularly those involving claims of tradition versus individual rights.
As the hearings continue, the focus remains on defining the boundaries between faith, law, and constitutional safeguards. The court’s final decision is expected to provide greater clarity on how such conflicts should be resolved within India’s legal framework.