The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing the long-pending review petitions in the Sabarimala temple entry case, taking up a set of wider constitutional questions that go beyond the Kerala shrine.
At the centre of the hearings is a larger debate on how far courts can go in matters of faith, and how the right to equality balances with the right to practice religion.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is hearing the matter. The bench also includes Justices Joymalya Bagchi, BV Nagarathna, R Mahadevan, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih and Prasanna B Varale.
Key constitutional questions before the bench
The court will examine several issues linked to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. At its heart, the case is about how the Constitution protects religion. The court will look at how much freedom individuals and religious groups actually have, and where those rights may run into other fundamental rights.
They will also try to unpack what “morality” means in this context and if it includes the idea of constitutional morality. Another important issue is how far courts can step in to examine or question religious practices.
The judges are also expected to interpret the phrase “sections of Hindus” under Article 25(2)(b), and decide if people outside a religious group can challenge its practices through public interest litigation.
Case linked to broader issues across faiths
The present hearing follows earlier developments in the case. In 2018, a Constitution Bench had allowed women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala temple, ending a long-standing restriction on women between 10 and 50 years.
In 2019, a five-judge bench led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the issues raised in the review petitions were not limited to Sabarimala alone. It noted that similar constitutional questions arise in other cases as well.
The wider set of cases includes whether Muslim women can be stopped from entering mosques, whether female genital mutilation can be defended as a religious practice in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and whether Parsi women who marry outside the faith can be denied entry to fire temples.
In 2020, the Supreme Court said these were not questions that could be handled in a limited or case-by-case manner. It decided they needed to be examined by a larger bench because the issues cut across faiths and raised bigger constitutional concerns.
The hearing will now proceed in parts. Those seeking a review will argue first, and the other side will respond after that. The process is expected to wrap up with final submissions later this month.