A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is currently analyzing seven critical legal questions regarding religious rights and freedoms in India. The proceedings, which began on April 7, stem from a reference arising out of the Sabarimala review case.
The outcome of this reference is expected to have a major impact on various legal disputes. This includes the ongoing question of whether women of menstruating ages should be allowed to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The Path to a Larger Bench
The current proceedings are connected to a September 2018 verdict in which a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled 4:1 to allow women of all ages to enter the hilltop shrine. That decision overturned traditions that had restricted the entry of women of menstruating age.
Following dozens of review petitions, the Supreme Court pronounced a judgment in November 2019. It determined that larger issues, such as the Essential Religious Practices Test and the interplay between Articles 14, 25, and 26, required a larger Bench to resolve.
The current nine-judge Bench is led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant. He is joined by Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
Broader Legal Implications
The reference verdict may extend its influence beyond the Sabarimala temple. It could potentially impact pending cases regarding the entry of Muslim women into Dargahs and Mosques, as well as the practice of female genital mutilation.
The Court is also examining excommunication practices. This includes the excommunication of Parsi women who marry non-Parsis—which the Court observed appeared to be discriminatory—and practices within the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Balancing Faith and Reform
During the hearings, the Court has grappled with the tension between social reform and religious tradition. On April 15, the Bench observed that declaring the beliefs of millions of people as wrong is one of the most difficult tasks for a court.
The Court further stated that a religion cannot be stripped of its essential practices in the name of social reform. On May 12, it reinforced this by observing that freedom of religion cannot be violated for the sake of social reform.
The Central government has advocated for greater freedom in religious practices. It has questioned whether courts are the appropriate forum to determine what constitutes an essential religious practice and argued that the Sabarimala restriction was not based solely on gender.
Judicial Boundaries and Constitutionalism
The Bench has emphasized that constitutional authorities must rise above personal religious beliefs and be guided by freedom of conscience. The Court also noted it is aware of the limits of judicial review in religious matters.
Recent observations have touched upon the nature of Indian democracy. The Court noted that while India is a constitutional democracy where majority rule prevails, majoritarianism cannot trump constitutionalism.
Looking forward, the final verdict may redefine how the State invokes constitutional morality and Directive Principles of State Policy to justify social reform laws. It could also clarify whether pre-constitutional religious customs are protected under Article 25(2) of the Constitution.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of the current Supreme Court reference?
The Court is examining seven essential legal questions concerning religious rights and freedoms in India, arising from the Sabarimala review case.
Which other communities might be affected by this verdict?
The verdict may impact cases involving Muslim women’s entry into Dargahs and Mosques, as well as excommunication practices in the Parsi and Dawoodi Bohra communities.
What did the Court observe regarding social reform and religion?
The Court observed that freedom of religion cannot be violated in the name of social reform and that a religion cannot be stripped of its essential practices for that purpose.
Do you believe the courts are the appropriate forum to define essential religious practices?