As the nation closely watches the Sabarimala Women Entry Case hearing, the Supreme Court of India orally observed that courts cannot dismantle religion in the name of reform, and that matters of belief and conscience are not amenable to judicial adjudication.
On the tenth day of proceedings, the nine-judge Bench raised a series of queries before Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who appears for two women that entered the Sabarimala Temple following the 2018 ruling that lifted the prohibition on women aged 10 to 50.
Jaising contended that the individual right to religious freedom under Article 25(1) must take precedence over the collective rights of religious denominations under Article 26. She argued that courts cannot remain entirely hands-off in matters of faith, as the power of judicial review is integral to the constitutional framework. Emphasising the evolving nature of the Constitution, she said fundamental rights must be interpreted holistically rather than in isolation, adding that religious practices are dynamic and subject to reform over time.
It will be annihilation of religion, of which we don’t want to be a part: Justice Nagarathna
During the hearing, one of the questions that arose from the Bench was whether non-believers or casual visitors can challenge customary restrictions on entry to a religious temple.
Appearing for Kanaka Durga and Bindu Ammini, two women from Kerala who had faced backlash and threats after they entered the Sabarimala temple after the Court’s 2018 verdict, Indira Jaisingh said that “One needs to be a Hindu to claim such rights of entry.”
She added- “But I am also saying that it is not important whether I am a believer or not, but I must go with shraddha, with respect, to introspect.”
When Justice Amanullah asked whether such rights can be claimed even if it hurts the majority of believers, she said- “You tell me what legal injury I am causing to someone. If you show me the legal injury, I will not go. I am saying both of us are claiming a legal right.”
Justice Sundresh cautioned that accepting every individual claim based on differing and conflicting religious rights could open the door to serious consequences.
Justice Sundresh replied to Jaisingh – “If we agree with your contention, it is going to lead to dangerous consequences. I will tell you why. Suppose there is a common belief, followed by practice, professing and propagation. Each one (believer) goes and says, ‘I do not want this, I want it in a particular way.’ Another says, ‘I do not want this practice.’ Where is the end? If you really look at it, this kind of interpretation will be a disaster for the entire concept of religion itself. It will be militating against the right under Article 25(1).”
“It will be annihilation of religion, of which we don’t want to be a part,” added Justice Nagarathna.
She added that religious rights have to be given a broad meaning.
“We understand Article 25(2), which is the enabling power of the State (to make laws on religious matters on grounds of health, morality, public order). But otherwise, matters of religion are not a matter on which the Court or the legislature can pass a judgment upon. It cannot be the subject matter of debate because it is a matter of conscience. Having regard to the philosophy of that particular idol (Lord Ayyapa deity in Sabarimala), entry is banned for women between 10 and 50 years. It is part of religion.”
“First, they have to show there is such a rule. First, they have to show a theological text which says so,” Justice Jaising replied.
“It is a custom,” Justice Nagarathna observed.
Justice Nagarathna on Article 25(2)(b)
Jaising contended that the individual right to religious freedom under Article 25(1) must take precedence over the collective rights of religious denominations under Article 26. She argued that courts cannot remain entirely hands-off in matters of faith, as the power of judicial review is integral to the constitutional framework. Emphasising the evolving nature of the Constitution, she said fundamental rights must be interpreted holistically rather than in isolation, adding that religious practices are dynamic and subject to reform over time.
Delineating the scope of the plea, she clarified that the claim under Article 25(1) is confined to the right of entry into the temple and does not extend to modifying religious rituals or ceremonies, which remain protected under Article 26.
According to Live Law, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned whether a devotee could approach a deity while accepting only select aspects of the belief system. He also raised concerns about challenging long-standing customs, noting that practices followed over centuries often crystallise into essential components of a tradition and cannot be disregarded abruptly after such a long passage of time.
Responding, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising asked what legal injury is caused by a woman entering the temple. She argued that if a woman chooses not to visit out of respect for the belief that the deity is a ‘Naishtika brahmachari’, that choice must be respected—but it cannot be mandated that no woman should be allowed entry.
She was appearing for Kanaka Durga and Bindu Ammini, two women from Kerala who had faced backlash and threats after they entered the Sabarimala temple after the Court’s 2018 verdict.
