A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, 7th April commenced the final hearing on a batch of review petitions and writ petitions regarding the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, expanding the debate far beyond the entry of women into the Ayyappa shrine in Kerala. The proceedings are also examining the broader constitutional questions of religious freedom, the scope of judicial intervention in faith matters, and the rights of religious denominations across multiple faiths.

In a landmark 4:1 judgment delivered in September 2018, a five-judge Bench had struck down the centuries-old practice that barred menstruating women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple, holding it unconstitutional and violative of women’s fundamental rights. The majority opinion ruled that the exclusion was not an essential religious practice and could not override the right to equality and non discrimination.

However, the verdict triggered widespread protests and legal challenges. In November 2019, a five-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi referred the review petitions arising from the 2018 ruling, along with connected writ petitions, to a larger seven-judge bench by a majority decision.

Importantly, the 2019 order did not confine itself to the Sabarimala dispute alone. It framed larger questions of law, including the extent of constitutional protection available to “essential religious practices” under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the limits of judicial review over such practices.

See also: Arrangements all set for new season of Sabrimala Temple

The bench clubbed the Sabarimala matter with similar cases involving other faiths: the right of Muslim women to enter mosques, the entry rights of Parsi women who married outside their community into fire temples, and the practice of female genital mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohra community.

During Tuesday’s hearing, the Centre strongly defended the need to respect religious diversity and cautioned against a uniform, one-size-fits-all judicial approach. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, told the bench that adopting a rigid definition of what constitutes a “religious denomination” or an “essential religious practice” would undermine the inherently plural and diverse character of Hinduism, which encompasses varied sects, regional customs, rituals, and beliefs.

Mehta argued that not every religious practice can be framed as an issue of dignity, personal choice, or gender discrimination. “Every denomination practice we have to respect; everything is not related to dignity or bodily freedom,” he submitted. Citing examples from other faiths, he said: “If I go to a mazar or a gurdwara and if I have to cover my head, I can’t say my dignity or right or choice is taken away.”

He emphasised that the Sabarimala tradition is intrinsically linked to the nature and attributes of the presiding deity Lord Ayyappa himself. “Sabarimala is about an attribute of a deity, how can it be judicially examined?” the Solicitor General asked, questioning the extent to which courts can interfere in such matters.

Mehta further contended that a recent trend in jurisprudence has attempted to view every constitutional provision through the lens of gender, which, he said, was not the intent of the Constitution. “In the last decade or so, a jurisprudence has developed where every constitutional provision is sought to be seen through the lens of gender. But all provisions are not so intended,” he submitted. He reminded the court that Article 14 guarantees equality to all citizens while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds including sex, and that fundamental rights are available equally to everyone.

See also: SC warns of contempt for non‑response on nationwide SOP for missing persons

The Centre also flagged the long-term ramifications of the judgment. Senior lawyers, including those supporting the review petitions, urged the bench to consider that the outcome would shape the country’s religious and constitutional landscape for at least the next 30-40 years.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing in the matter, noted that the court is essentially re-examining the scope and interpretation of Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee the right to freedom of religion and the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.

Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading the nine-judge bench, assured the parties that the court would proceed with full clarity and caution before arriving at any conclusion. “The court would ensure it had full clarity before reaching a conclusion,” the Chief Justice observed.

Suggested reading: