New Delhi, Apr 7 (LAB) The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday commenced hearings in the Sabarimala temple review matter, with a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant set to examine far-reaching constitutional questions on religious freedom, gender equality, and judicial review.
The case arises from challenges to the Court’s 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, wherein a five-judge Bench, by a 4:1 majority, had permitted entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple and struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965.
The present proceedings, scheduled from April 7 to April 27, will first take up review petitions between April 7–9, followed by final rejoinders and arguments from April 22–29, with the Court appointing nodal officers from both sides to facilitate the hearing.
Nine-judge Constitutional bench comprises Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who will preside over the bench.
Other judges include Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The Constitution Bench is examining seven substantial questions of law, including the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the interplay between individual and denominational rights, the extent of judicial review in religious practices, the meaning of “constitutional morality,” and whether persons outside a religious denomination can challenge its practices.
The outcome is expected to have a wider bearing on similar issues pending before the Court, including Muslim women’s entry into mosques, rights of Parsi women married outside the community to access fire temples, and the legality of practices such as female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
During the day’s proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that India should not be viewed through a Western lens of patriarchy, asserting that women have historically been accorded a position of respect in Indian society.
He contended that the phrase “all persons are equally entitled” under Article 25 reflects constitutional secularism rather than gender equality, which is separately addressed under Articles 14 and 15, and submitted that denominational rights under Article 26(b) may, in appropriate cases, prevail over individual rights under Article 25.
The Bench, including Justice B.V. Nagarathna, engaged with the submissions, noting the dual role of Article 25(2) in preserving religious practices while enabling social reform, while the CJI observed that the interpretation of these provisions would have long-term implications on constitutional jurisprudence.
Senior advocates including Rajeev Dhavan, Indira Jaising, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi also made preliminary submissions on issues ranging from the definition of religious denomination to the maintainability of review petitions. The hearing concluded for the day with the Bench indicating that arguments will continue, in what is expected to be a significant constitutional adjudication shaping the contours of religious freedom in India./ LAB/SNG