Supreme Court During Sabarimala Hearing: Cannot Hollow Out Religion In The Name Of Reform

On the tenth day of hearing of the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court observed that it cannot hollow out religion in the name of reform and that matters of belief and conscience cannot be subjected to judicial debate.

Justice BV Nagarathna, part of the 9-judge bench hearing the review petitions observed that Article 25(2)(b), which empowers the State to make law for social reform, is not a right in itself, and is only an enabling power. "In the name of reform, don't hollow out the religion. Let us not open rituals and ceremonies which are there for centuries," Justice Nagarathna said.

The court today heard submissions by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who represented two women who entered the Sabarimala temple pursuant to the 2018 judgment.

Justice Nagarathna observed that the court will have to see as to who was seeking entry. "We have to see who is seeking the entry at all? Someone in North India is trying to get the entry. Are they devotees at all. We have to see this," the judge said.

Jaising told the bench that the religious freedom guaranteed to individuals under Article 25(1) of the Constitution would prevail over the rights of religious denominations under Article 26. She emphasized that courts cannot adopt a complete "hands-off" approach in religious matters, as judicial review is an inherent constitutional power.

"The right of temple entry in a public temple is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 25(1) of the Constitution. No, that right is guaranteed to me by the Constitution itself. It is not as if Article 25(1) is not controlled. It is also controlled by Article 25(2). For want of a better expression, I will call Article 25(2) the hero of these two rights, because it controls both. It controls Article 25(1) and it controls Article 26(b)", Jaising stated.

Jaising also asked what legal harm is caused by the entry of a woman to the temple. She clarified that if a woman does not want to go under the belief that the deity is a 'naishtika brahmachari', then she has the choice not to go, but it cannot be insisted that no woman should go. "Whether custom prevails or one woman's desire," Justice Nagarathna asked Jaising. "It's not desire, it's a freedom," Jaising replied. "Is it reverence if you are upsetting the people there?" Justice Amanullah asked. 

"It will be annihilating religion, which we don't want to be a part of. Matters of conscience cannot be a subject matter of debate in a secular court," Justice Nagarathna went on to observe.

Last month, after five years of the review petitions being taken up last, the Supreme Court of India today took up the batch of petitions challenging its September 2018 decision wherein a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority had ruled that the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. Notably, more than 50 review petitions have filed by devotees, religious groups, and organisations arguing that the Court interfered with essential religious practices as Lord Ayyappa devotees form a separate religious denomination.

The issue dates back to 2006, when Indian Young Lawyers Association had filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (1965 Rules) and sought a direction to permit female devotees between the ages of 10 to 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without any restrictions.

By a majority of 4:1, the Supreme Court allowed the Writ Petition on 28 September 2018 holding that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court also concluded that exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entry into the temple is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Further, Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was declared as violative of Article 25 (1) to the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

On 14 November 2019, a five judge Constitution Bench delivered a crucial order by a 3:2 Majority wherein it kept the Review petitions pending without overturning the 2018 judgment and referred larger constitutional questions to a 9-judge bench. The 9-judge bench led by former CJI SA Bobde held that no matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so, under the provisions of the Constitution and held that the review petitions were maintainable.

The Sabarimala review petitions is now one of the most important constitutional debates, balancing gender equality with religious freedom. Instead of immediately revising the 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court has chosen to examine wider questions affecting multiple faiths, making the case a landmark in constitutional and religious jurisprudence. Court has now expanded the issue beyond Sabarimala to include Muslim women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women’s religious rights and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication practices along with other similar issues.

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Vs INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B V Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Date: April 29, 2026