Supreme Court reserves verdict in Sabarimala reference after 16 days of Constitution Bench hearing, details
Apart from the Sabarimala issue, the court proceedings also covered broader questions concerning religious freedom across faiths, including matters involving the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Total Views |
The Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, reserved its verdict in the long-pending Sabarimala reference case after hearing arguments for 16 days before a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The hearings, which began on April 7, revisited major constitutional questions arising from the court’s 2018 judgment that permitted women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala Temple shrine.
_202605151139474332_H@@IGHT_400_W@@IDTH_700.jpg "Sabarimala case newsbharati")
Apart from the Sabarimala issue, the proceedings also covered broader questions concerning religious freedom across faiths, including matters involving the Dawoodi Bohra community. The eventual ruling is expected to influence several pending disputes related to women’s entry into dargahs and mosques, excommunication practices among Parsis and Dawoodi Bohras, and issues surrounding female genital mutilation.
During rejoinder arguments, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that excommunication in the Parsi community had practically ceased decades ago. He told the Bench that there was no arbitrary authority capable of enforcing such actions anymore, stating that “in the last seventy-five years, there has in fact been no excommunication at all.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium argued that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution operate in separate constitutional domains and that conflicts between individual rights and denominational rights are not inevitable. Distinguishing religion from religious denomination, he said the two expressions carry separate constitutional meanings. He also objected to what he described as an emerging hierarchy among fundamental rights, disagreeing with certain observations earlier made by former CJI DY Chandrachud in the electoral bonds case.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued that Articles 26 and 29 primarily protect collective or group rights, cautioning against reducing constitutional interpretation solely to individual rights. Referring to the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, he contended that once a religious practice was declared non-essential, those asserting the practice were effectively denied Article 25 protection. He also criticised the use of “constitutional morality” as an independent basis for invalidating laws.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi opposed describing Hinduism merely as a way of life, arguing that it is also a religious philosophy and a deeply evolved social system. He maintained that Articles 25 and 26 are fundamentally collective rights.
At one stage, CJI Surya Kant underscored the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary, observing, “The constitutional court cannot give up its responsibility. You cannot surrender that.” Earlier during the hearings, the Supreme Court had cautioned that if every religious practice began to be challenged before constitutional courts, it could result in a flood of litigation and potentially destabilise all religions.
The original 2018 ruling was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, which struck down the ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. In a 4:1 majority decision delivered in September 2018, the court held that the centuries-old practice was unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights.
In 2018, a 4:1 majority verdict of the Supreme Court struck down the traditional restriction that barred women of menstruating age from entering the hill shrine. However, in November 2019, while hearing review petitions, the court referred broader constitutional questions to a larger Bench rather than delivering a final resolution. The present Bench comprises CJI Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
Apart from the Sabarimala issue, the proceedings also covered broader questions concerning religious freedom across faiths, including matters involving the Dawoodi Bohra community. The eventual ruling is expected to influence several pending disputes related to women’s entry into dargahs and mosques, excommunication practices among Parsis and Dawoodi Bohras, and issues surrounding female genital mutilation.
During rejoinder arguments, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that excommunication in the Parsi community had practically ceased decades ago. He told the Bench that there was no arbitrary authority capable of enforcing such actions anymore, stating that “in the last seventy-five years, there has in fact been no excommunication at all.”
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that questions concerning faith and denomination are open to judicial review to a certain extent, though courts should avoid entering into matters requiring value judgments. Justice Varale similarly remarked that courts cannot always remain completely detached from denominational disputes.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued that Articles 26 and 29 primarily protect collective or group rights, cautioning against reducing constitutional interpretation solely to individual rights. Referring to the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, he contended that once a religious practice was declared non-essential, those asserting the practice were effectively denied Article 25 protection. He also criticised the use of “constitutional morality” as an independent basis for invalidating laws.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi opposed describing Hinduism merely as a way of life, arguing that it is also a religious philosophy and a deeply evolved social system. He maintained that Articles 25 and 26 are fundamentally collective rights.
Senior Advocate K Parameshwar urged the court not to interpret Articles 25 and 26 in isolation from other fundamental rights. He criticised the Essential Religious Practices doctrine as elitist and argued that spiritual pursuits are closely tied to personal identity, protected under Article 21.
At one stage, CJI Surya Kant underscored the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary, observing, “The constitutional court cannot give up its responsibility. You cannot surrender that.” Earlier during the hearings, the Supreme Court had cautioned that if every religious practice began to be challenged before constitutional courts, it could result in a flood of litigation and potentially destabilise all religions.
The original 2018 ruling was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, which struck down the ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. In a 4:1 majority decision delivered in September 2018, the court held that the centuries-old practice was unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights.