NEW DELHI: On the seventh day of hearings in the Sabarimala review petitions, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would be hard to lay down universal or prospective guidelines on when the state can intervene in religious practices in the name of social reform, saying such questions are case-specific.
The nine-judge bench of the apex court was hearing arguments from the petitioners on the point and scope of the State’s power under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, which permits legislation for social welfare and reform affecting religious practices.
During the hearing, the court noted that Part III serves as an embargo on Article 25(1) regarding individual devotees’ rights. The court added that the State, as a representative of the people’s will, may legitimately act to address social evils, but judicial assessment would always remain context-specific.
“So far as social welfare or reforms are concerned, it is a very wide term, and the State is not a stranger or an alien. The State represents the will of the people, and if the people want certain social evils reformed, that power can be exercised. But it is very difficult for us to lay down any future guidance. It will always depend on case to case as to whether the reforms fall under Article 25(2)(b) or, in the name of reforms, it amounts to an infringement of a religious practice,” the CJI said.
Justice B. V. Nagarathna asked whether a State law that expressly permits entry of young women into the Sabarimala Temple, in the name of social reform, would amount to an invasion of religious practice or could be sustained as a valid reform measure.
“Suppose the Kerala rules had said, in the name of social reforms, that the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 to the temple is permitted. Is it an invasion, or could we say it is not an essential practice and therefore upheld? What is the extent of invasion there?” she asked.
Replying to the court’s queries, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium said that even in such cases, the court would need to undertake a careful inquiry into the nature and basis of the practice before determining whether State intervention qualifies as social reform. He argued that the court must examine whether the exclusion is part of an ancient tradition.
Appearing for the President of VHP Kerala and General Secretary of the Sabarimala Karma Samiti, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram contended that while the Constitution seeks to achieve gender equality in areas like employment and social life, this principle does not extend to access to places of worship or the exercise of religious freedom, even under the Directive Principles.
Sundaram further highlighted that temples are fundamentally “a board of the deity,” where worship is shaped by the specific form and tradition associated with that deity, and therefore religious practices must be understood within that framework.
Mukul Rohatgi, senior lawyer and former Attorney General appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that “my lords have said don’t enter a political thicket; rather, I would say don’t enter a religious thicket to decide what is essential practice.”
He stated that the question also arises whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 are subject to other provisions of Part III, apart from public order, morality, and health.
“Constitutional morality has no place in creating a restriction. The moment you add constitutional morality, you are either expanding or adding another restriction,” Rohatgi submitted. The hearing continues on Thursday.
Also in top court
UP govt told to pay Rs 1L cost to employee
The SC on Wednesday expressed anguish over an employee being made to run from pillar to post since 2011 for a preferred posting in his home state, and directed the UP government to pay Rs 1 lakh to him. It directed the state chief secretary to facilitate forthwith the reallocation of the employee to the state of Uttarakhand.
End to battle over TN land transaction
Bringing closure to a legal battle over disputed land transactions, the SC on Wednesday vacated a status-quo order that had left thousands of homebuyers in the lurch at Thazhambur in Tamil Nadu. The bench said a “professed welfare state” cannot attempt to undo land transactions from decades ago.