The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday strongly cautioned against bringing individual temple practices into constitutional arguments during hearings before a nine-judge Constitution Bench reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala verdict. The bench reiterated that it is examining broader questions of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, not adjudicating on specific rituals or customs followed at individual places of worship.

The proceedings relate to the ongoing review of the court’s 2018 judgment in the Sabarimala Temple entry verdict (2018), which had allowed women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala temple. During the hearing, an advocate arguing for the review raised objections citing ritual practices at the Kamakhya Temple, including references to tantric traditions and animal sacrifice, claiming they raised constitutional concerns.

The advocate also argued that certain practices at Kamakhya, including celebrations during the Ambubachi festival and the participation of women priests, contrasted with restrictions at other temples such as Sabarimala. She contended that such religious practices should be examined under the framework of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21, and suggested that some ritual traditions could be discriminatory or harmful if misused.

Also Read: Controversy Continues: Centre Defends Sabarimala Restriction Amid Women’s Rights Debate

However, Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the relevance of such submissions to the scope of the case and asked the counsel to clarify her position in the review petition. He emphasised that the court was not examining disputes over individual temple rituals or management structures, but rather constitutional principles governing religious freedoms and their limits under Articles 25 and 26.

The bench further directed the advocate to refrain from expanding arguments into specific temple customs, stating that such matters fall outside the scope of the constitutional questions under consideration. The court stressed that its focus remains on legal interpretation rather than evaluation of religious practices at particular institutions, whether involving Kamakhya or any other temple.

The nine-judge bench continues to hear interventions on complex questions surrounding the balance between religious freedom, judicial review, and constitutional rights. The outcome of the hearings is expected to have far-reaching implications for how courts interpret faith-based customs and individual rights in India.

Also Read: Centre Argues Sabarimala Women Entry Ban Is Tradition, Not Discrimination