"You Are Not Pope or Priest To Decide Essentialities of Faith": Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan In Sabarimala Reference Before Supreme Court

In his rejoinder submissions before the Supreme Court's 9-judge bench hearing the reference case arising out of the Sabarimala temple entry issue and questions concerning religious freedom, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan urged the bench to exercise caution in matters of religion.

"Your lordships are not the HIGH POPE OR THE HIGH PRIESTS TO WANDER INTO THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND ESSENTIALITY OR INTEGRALITY WILL TAKE YOUR LORDSHIPS STRAIGHT INTO IT," Dhavan told the CJI-Kant led bench.

The senior lawyer further referred to the 2018 Sabarimala verdict and said, "What happened in Sabarimala? They said this is not essential to your faith...the Article 25 rights, if you treat it as a limitation, they will disappear..if there are threshold requirements, Article 25 and 26 rights will be invalidated..".

On the respondent's argument on the concept of the individual alone. Dhavan said Article 26 is a group right along with Article 29 which is also group right. Call it horizontal, call it whatever you like, but constitutionally they are rights vested in collectives and groups, he argued.

"There is a difference between a mere collective of persons and a constitutional community. Article 25 concerns communities in a deeper constitutional sense. It is not simply about a gathering of persons who suddenly assemble and choose a leader. There must be some organising principle, some continuity, some shared purpose," Dhavan further said.

Earlier too, the senior lawyer had stressed that the Essential Religious Practices doctrine has mutated from a simple inquiry into a "total collapse" test, forcing the judiciary to act as a theological body, a role as per him, the judges are ill-equipped to perform.

In a similar vein, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had vehemently argued yesterday against the court's intervention into matters of religion. He questioned Court can function as a reformer of religion. "My answer is no and the reason is the constitutional scheme entrusts the reform part to the legislature and there is a reason...when a particular practice requires reform or there is a social practise..Before passing of a law there is a detailed practise, what is law, I am in parliament, and each and every citizen of this country is present in parliament through its representative and when a law is passed, its acceptability is much more than a judicial verdict, I do not wish to compare this with Sabarimala..and therefore advisedly the Parliament has left reform to the State.." SG told court.

After five years of the review petitions being taken up last, the Supreme Court of India in March 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: May 14, 2026