The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that while courts cannot sit in judgment over the core religious affairs of a denomination, the State is well within its powers to intervene where the exercise of religious rights affects secular activities, marking a crucial boundary in the ongoing Sabarimala reference.
A nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant underscored this distinction during an expansive hearing on the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, as it continued to examine larger questions arising out of the row over the entry of menstruating women into the Kerala shrine. The bench also included justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi.
The bench emphasised that autonomy in matters of faith, particularly modes of worship and core religious practices, remains insulated from judicial scrutiny. However, justice Nagarathna pointed out that this protection is not absolute when religious exercise spills into areas affecting public life.
Illustrating the point, she observed that while a temple may conduct its religious rituals freely, it cannot, under the guise of religion, disrupt civic order. “You do your religious activity, but not by blocking the roads…The State can always step in,” remarked the judge, adding that courts would refrain from interfering in the manner of worship but not where secular consequences arise.
The observation goes to the heart of Article 25(2)(a), which permits State regulation of economic, financial and other secular activities associated with religion, even as Articles 25 and 26 guarantee freedom of religion and denominational rights.
{{/usCountry}}The observation goes to the heart of Article 25(2)(a), which permits State regulation of economic, financial and other secular activities associated with religion, even as Articles 25 and 26 guarantee freedom of religion and denominational rights.
{{/usCountry}}The hearing also saw sharp interventions from the bench when submissions veered into comparisons between religions. The court warned advocate Ashwini Upadhyay against projecting any one religion, or even language, as superior to others, stressing the need to maintain constitutional neutrality in a courtroom.
At one stage, when arguments sought to distinguish between religions in hierarchical terms, justice Nagarathna responded, “All are equal,” while justice Amanullah reminded counsel that such submissions were being made on a “public platform”. Justice Sundresh termed the line of argument “not in good taste,” prompting the bench to steer the discussion back to constitutional principles.
The proceedings, part of the larger reference arising from the Sabarimala dispute, revolve around the extent to which courts can test religious practices against constitutional guarantees such as equality and non-discrimination.
While some counsel argued that “essential religious practices” must remain immune even from social reform, others contended that such a doctrine risks insulating exclusionary practices from scrutiny. Submissions also highlighted the complex relationship between individual religious freedom under Article 25 and the collective rights of denominations under Article 26.
A batch of lawyers seeking a review of the 2018 verdict that allowed entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple underscored that Article 26 rights, particularly the right to manage religious affairs, are indispensable to the meaningful exercise of Article 25 freedoms, with one counsel describing the relationship as “symbiotic and reciprocal.” Senior counsel Madhavi Divan, Sridhar Potaraju, Nachiket Joshi, and advocates Fauzia Shakil, Anirudh Sharma, Mathews Nedumpara, Nizam Pasha, Atulesh Kumar and Eklavya Dwivedi argued in support of the review.
A key fault line in the arguments concerned the extent of permissible State intervention. While one set of submissions insisted that social reform cannot override the core identity of a religion, others pointed to constitutional provisions that expressly allow reform-oriented intervention.
The bench itself appeared to recognise this delicate balance. Justice Nagarathna noted that constitutional provisions enabling reform, particularly in the Hindu context, were crafted in response to historical realities such as caste-based exclusion, underscoring that the Constitution does not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach across religions. At the same time, the court indicated that any State action must remain proportionate and rooted in constitutionally permissible grounds such as public order, morality and health.
The ongoing reference traces back to the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling allowing entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple, which had overturned a long-standing practice excluding women of menstruating age. In 2019, while hearing review petitions, the court framed broader constitutional questions on religious freedom without conclusively deciding the issue, referring them to a larger bench.
The present proceedings are expected to have far-reaching implications beyond Sabarimala, potentially shaping the legal framework governing faith-based practices across religions.