Supreme Court Hears Sabarimala Reference: Balancing Religious Freedom and Equality

The Supreme Court of India is currently in the 13th day of its hearing on the Sabarimala reference, a complex case that delves into the intricate relationship between religious freedom, equality, and the scope of constitutional rights in India. A nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, is meticulously examining seven pivotal legal questions that could significantly shape the interpretation of religious practices and freedoms in the country. The core of the reference stems from the 2018 verdict that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, a decision that overturned a long-standing tradition. The subsequent review petitions led to the Supreme Court referring broader constitutional issues to this larger bench. During the ongoing hearings, the judges have raised profound concerns about the potential repercussions of excessive judicial intervention in religious matters. Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked that if individuals begin challenging religious practices indiscriminately before constitutional courts, it could lead to a deluge of petitions, potentially weakening religions and disrupting India's civilizational fabric. She emphasized the unique nature of India as a civilization where religion is intimately connected with society, and that this constant cannot be broken. Justice M.M. Sundresh echoed these sentiments, warning that such broad challenges could lead to religions breaking apart and constitutional courts being overwhelmed. The bench has also pondered whether constitutional morality should be the sole touchstone for testing the validity of religious practices, with some judges suggesting that such practices should be tested against specific constitutional rights, like Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The scope of the hearings extends beyond the Sabarimala temple itself, encompassing related issues such as the practice of excommunication within the Dawoodi Bohra community. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing a group of reformist Dawoodi Bohras, argued that practices associated with secular or social actions should not receive constitutional protection merely because they have a religious aspect, especially if they adversely affect fundamental rights. This aspect of the case highlights the tension between the right to manage religious affairs (Article 26) and the protection of fundamental rights (Article 25). The court is grappling with how to interpret these articles harmoniously, particularly when religious practices might conflict with principles of equality. Furthermore, the bench has expressed critical views on the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in matters of faith. On one occasion, the court questioned the intent behind a PIL filed by the Indian Young Lawyers' Association that led to the original Sabarimala judgment, with Chief Justice Surya Kant suggesting it should have been "thrown in the dustbin". Justice Nagarathna questioned the locus standi of a non-believer challenging established religious customs. This line of questioning underscores the court's consideration of who has the right to challenge religious practices and the potential for abuse of the legal process. The current hearings are a critical step in clarifying several overarching constitutional questions, including the Essential Religious Practices Test, the interplay between Articles 25 and 26, and their relationship with Article 14 (equality before the law). The outcome of this reference is expected to have a far-reaching impact, potentially influencing other pending cases related to religious practices and the rights of individuals within various religious communities across India. The Supreme Court's careful deliberation aims to strike a delicate balance between upholding religious freedom and ensuring the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination for all citizens.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest