The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that issues of social reform arising from religious practices fall within the domain of the legislature and not the judiciary, as a nine-judge Constitution Bench began final hearing in the Sabarimala women entry matter.
Opening arguments for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said courts must exercise restraint in matters of faith, asserting that restricting entry of a particular gender within a defined age group at a place of worship cannot be termed discrimination. The Constitution entrusts social welfare and reform to the legislature. Courts are not meant to reform religious practices, Mehta submitted.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, is examining the scope of Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
Mehta argued that the 2018 judgment allowing entry of women of menstruating age into Lord Ayyappa’s temple at Sabarimala had the effect of “compressing the plurality and diversity of Hinduism”.
He emphasised that India’s religious traditions are inherently diverse and cannot be subjected to the application of fundamental rights under the constitution.
“If a denomination seeks to regulate entry into a specific religious institution, such a claim must be examined in a manner that protects religious diversity and denominational rights,” he said.
At the same time, Mehta added that a complete prohibition across all institutions against a class of persons would require balancing with civil rights vis-à-vis the religious denominational rights.
He stressed that Article 25 protects the rights of “all persons” to freely practise religion, but also permits regulation on grounds of public order, morality, health and other fundamental rights.
Responding to concerns, Mehta said respecting the belief that Lord Ayyappa is a “Naishtika Brahmachari” was not a denial of dignity but recognition of faith.
He also contended that India is not as patriarchal or gender-specific as it is often perceived in the West. He said that in India women stand on a higher pedestal.
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised a key question on whether a group’s belief about the mode of worship leading to salvation could be tested on the touchstone of equality.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned the application of Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) in the Sabarimala context.
“Speaking as a woman, untouchability cannot be practised for three days and then cease on the fourth day. Article 17 cannot apply in such a manner,” she remarked.
However, Justice Nagarathna also clarified that courts can intervene where social evils are projected as religious practices.
“If a social evil is given a religious colour, courts can step in to distinguish between the two,” she observed.
Justice M.M. Sundresh underlined the distinction between faith and logic, stating, “Science is based on logic, while religion is based on belief.”
He also indicated that the scope of judicial review in such matters may be limited and courts cannot assume the role of theological experts.
Mehta agreed that courts could intervene in extreme cases, citing examples where practices offend morality or fundamental rights, but cautioned against routine judicial scrutiny of religious tenets.
The Solicitor General will continue arguments on Wednesday.