Can Courts Intervene In Religious Practices? Supreme Court Raises Key Questions In Sabarimala Case
Supreme Court examines Sabarimala reference balancing religion and constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that India’s “diversity is its strength” while hearing arguments in a nine-judge bench reference linked to the 2018 Sabarimala verdict and broader questions concerning religious practices and fundamental rights. The observations came during proceedings that are expected to have far-reaching implications on issues such as women’s entry into religious places and the extent of constitutional protection for religious customs.
During the hearing, Justice B. V. Nagarathna emphasised that India’s civilisational identity is rooted in plurality and diversity, noting that the court’s eventual ruling would impact not just one religious group but the wider constitutional framework governing religion in the country. She made the remarks while the court was hearing submissions related to challenges to practices such as ex-communication in the Dawoodi Bohra community and other religion-linked customs.
Justice Nagarathna highlighted that one of the central questions before the court is how religious practices should be examined under constitutional scrutiny—whether reforms should come from within religious denominations or through judicial intervention, and to what extent courts should adjudicate such matters. She said these issues are complex because they involve the intersection of faith, identity, and constitutional rights.
Also Read: Sabarimala Hearing: SC Examines Scope of Article 25 Religious Rights
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for petitioners challenging ex-communication practices, argued that India is a civilisation governed by its Constitution and that any practice violating fundamental rights cannot be permitted to continue. He said courts must exercise judicial responsibility in determining whether such practices infringe constitutional guarantees, particularly rights under Articles 21, 25, and 26.
The bench also heard submissions highlighting the social consequences of ex-communication, including ostracism, loss of livelihood, and exclusion from religious and community spaces. Ramachandran argued that such practices effectively amount to “civil death” and cannot be treated as mere procedural or internal religious disputes. He also pointed out that the long-pending case involves serious questions of dignity and equality that require constitutional adjudication.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the nine-judge bench is not deciding individual disputes but is instead addressing broader constitutional questions regarding the interplay between religious freedom and fundamental rights. The court is examining seven key questions arising from the Sabarimala reference, which are expected to influence future rulings on sensitive issues including women’s entry into religious spaces, ex-communication practices, and alleged discriminatory rituals within communities.
Also Read: Supreme Court Observes Limits Of Reforms In Sabarimala Case Hearing
