Sabarimala Hearing: SC Examines Scope of Article 25 Religious Rights

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday continued hearing the Sabarimala reference matter, with sharp observations from Justice B V Nagarathna directed at the Young Lawyers Association. During the eleventh day of proceedings, the bench questioned the association’s priorities, asking whether it had “no other business” than pursuing the case, and suggested that greater focus should be placed on welfare activities for the legal community.

The ongoing hearings relate to broader constitutional questions arising from the Sabarimala Temple entry issue, particularly concerning the rights of women and the scope of religious freedom. The court is examining whether exclusionary practices based on age or gender violate fundamental rights and how such practices align with constitutional protections under Articles 25 and 26, which govern religious freedom and the rights of denominations.

During earlier arguments, senior advocate Indira Jaising emphasised the issue of exclusion, drawing parallels to the mythological figure Shabari and arguing that denying entry to women between the ages of 10 and 50 is discriminatory. Justice Nagarathna, however, raised questions about whether individuals from outside a particular region or denomination could assert a right to enter a specific place of worship, highlighting the complexity of balancing individual rights with denominational autonomy.

Also Read: Supreme Court Observes Limits Of Reforms In Sabarimala Case Hearing

The bench also reiterated the importance of maintaining a balance between religious practices and public order. It observed that while the Constitution protects religious autonomy, the state can intervene when activities extend beyond strictly religious matters and impact secular concerns such as public order or access to public spaces. The court stressed that not all actions associated with religion qualify for constitutional protection, especially when they disrupt broader societal interests.

In previous hearings, the court underscored the value of diversity in India’s constitutional framework, noting that unity is strengthened through the recognition of varied religious traditions. It also cautioned against relying on unverified information sources during legal arguments, with Justice Nagarathna advising counsel to avoid citing material from unreliable platforms. The chief justice further clarified that while opinions from public figures may be respected, they do not hold legal authority in judicial proceedings.

The nine-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is considering seven key questions, including the scope of religious freedom, the interplay between individual and group rights, and the extent of judicial review over religious practices. The outcome of the case is expected to have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of constitutional morality, the limits of religious autonomy, and the rights of individuals seeking access to places of worship across India.

Also Read: CJI Surya Kant Leads Nine-Judge Bench in Final Hearing on Sabarimala Women's Entry Case