Nine-Judge Bench Examines Who Can Enter Sabarimala Amid Religious Freedom Debate

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday raised significant questions during the ongoing hearings related to the Sabarimala temple entry case, focusing on who is entitled to claim the right to enter places of worship and under what circumstances such rights can be asserted.

The observations were made by a nine-judge Constitution bench hearing a series of petitions concerning alleged discrimination against women in religious practices, including restrictions historically associated with the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala. The bench is also examining the broader scope of religious freedom under the Constitution and how it applies across different faiths and denominations.

During the proceedings, the court questioned the basis of claims made by petitioners, including whether individuals asserting the right to enter the temple are genuine devotees or non-devotees. One of the judges remarked that it must be determined who is seeking the right of entry, noting whether such claims originate from worshippers connected to the temple or individuals with no direct association to it. The discussion highlighted the complexity of balancing religious autonomy with constitutional rights.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for petitioners supporting the 2018 Supreme Court judgment that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple, argued that exclusionary practices violate fundamental rights under the Constitution. She contended that barring women between the ages of 10 and 50 amounts to discrimination during what she described as a significant phase of a woman’s life, and referenced protections under Article 17, which abolishes untouchability, and Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion.

Also Read: Trump Links Iran War To Divine Support, Pope Rejects Religious Justification

Jaising also referred to the experiences of women who attempted entry following the 2018 verdict, stating that despite the ruling, access remained difficult due to lack of administrative support and alleged social opposition. She argued that this reflected a failure in implementation of the court’s earlier judgment, which had struck down the traditional restriction as unconstitutional in a 4:1 majority decision by a five-judge bench in September 2018.

The hearing also touched upon broader constitutional questions about religious identity and denominational rights. The bench observed that diversity is a foundational strength of the country and noted that constitutional protections under Article 26 safeguard religious denominations while maintaining national unity. The court further acknowledged the difficulty in judicially defining what constitutes essential religious practices, indicating that such determinations remain legally complex and context-sensitive.

Also Read: SC Nine-Judge Bench Restricts Arguments To Articles 25 And 26 In Sabarimala Review