Supreme Court's 9-Judge Bench Continues Hearing Sabarimala Reference

The Supreme Court of India's nine-judge bench is in the midst of its seventh day of hearings for the Sabarimala reference, a pivotal case delving into the complex interplay between religious freedom, constitutional morality, and the rights of individuals within religious denominations. The bench, presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant, includes Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. This extensive bench was constituted to address significant constitutional questions that arose from the earlier five-judge bench's decision in 2018, which lifted the ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple. The current proceedings aim to examine the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25, and its relationship with the rights of religious denominations under Article 26 of the Constitution. During the hearings, the court has raised critical questions about the exclusion of devotees. For instance, Justice B.V. Nagarathna queried whether a believer's right to approach and touch a deity could be denied, thereby questioning exclusionary practices that might infringe upon fundamental rights. The bench has also delved into the concept of 'constitutional morality,' with Solicitor General questioning its application in religious matters and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi arguing that courts should not test religious beliefs on external standards. This signifies a move towards a judicial interpretation that prioritizes constitutional principles over deeply entrenched traditional practices when they lead to discrimination. The proceedings have seen arguments from various legal luminaries representing different stakeholders. Senior advocate V. Giri, appearing for the Sabarimala Achara Samrakshna Samiti, has emphasized the wisdom embedded in age-old customs, particularly the exclusion of women in a specific age group, arguing that maintaining the distinct characteristics of a temple is integral to its worship. He also contended that the concept of 'Naishtika Brahmachari' (permanent celibate) is an essential form of the religion in the context of the Sabarimala deity. However, the bench has also probed the notion of religious denominations and their autonomy. Justice Nagarathna remarked that Hindu society must unite and that temples cannot exclude individuals on denominational lines, as such exclusion would weaken the denomination itself. This statement suggests a judicial inclination to ensure that religious practices do not lead to broader societal fragmentation or discrimination. The historical context of the Sabarimala case is crucial. In September 2018, a five-judge bench had, by a 4:1 majority, declared the practice of barring women of certain ages from entering the temple unconstitutional, deeming it a violation of equality and freedom of religion. This verdict led to widespread protests, and subsequently, a review petition was filed, which was then referred to a larger bench. The current nine-judge bench is now tasked with reconsidering these issues and providing a comprehensive interpretation of the constitutional provisions related to religious freedom and the state's role in regulating such practices. The Supreme Court's approach in this hearing underscores its commitment to balancing religious freedom with fundamental rights and social reform. The ongoing deliberations are expected to set significant legal precedents for the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, particularly concerning the 'essential religious practice' doctrine and the application of 'constitutional morality' in matters of faith and tradition. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for the rights of individuals and the autonomy of religious institutions across India.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest