Parsis Survived In India Because Of Hinduism's Tolerance: Senior Adv Darius Khambata Tells SC During Sabarimala Reference

The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench hearing the Sabarimala reference case in which seven larger questions on the scope of religious freedoms are being considered has been told that Parsis survived in India only because of the tolerance of Hindus.

Making his submissions on the validity of excommunicating Parsi Zoroastrian women for entering interfaith marriages, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata told the court, "A miniscule community, a minority among minorities has survived for 1200 years, with its religion intact, with many of its customs intact, borrowing customs and practices ofcourse, I may be permitted to say this, that this is really because of the tolerance of Hinduism, the tolerance and munificence of Hinduism. It must be said and I will say it. No other place in the world this could have happened. It is a remarkable thing because Zoroastrianism went to other countries and it was wiped out.."

Court has has questioned if the practice of excommunicating Parsi Zoroastrian women for entering interfaith marriages is even a religious matter. Notably, Khambata, making submissions on behalf of a Parsi Zoroastrian woman who married a Hindu man and faced exclusion from the Parsi community due to her interfaith marriage, argued yesterday before the CJI Surya Kant led bench that Zoroastrianism is a very forward-looking religion, and this practice is actually man-made, which is why it’s difficult to find any religious texts that support this claim.

"If a belief or practice is proved unambiguously to be the genuine belief of a community or denomination, then a judge is bound to accept it. But the proof has to exist. Your Lordships have explained this in several decisions. Shirur Mutt itself recognized limits on judicial review. Bijoe Emmanuel also stated that the Court would determine whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion," Khambata told the court.

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.

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.

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 5, 2026