Overview
The AIMPLB has filed written submissions in the Supreme Court on the Sabarimala reference case. The Board cautions that courts should not determine what is an “essential religious practice”, arguing that such determinations breach the freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 and Article 26. The nine‑judge bench is slated to hear the matter from 7 April 2026.
Key Developments
- The AIMPLB argues that the doctrine of ERP imposes an unfair evidentiary burden on faith‑holders.
- It recommends shifting focus to whether state restrictions satisfy constitutional limits of public order, morality and health.
- The Board stresses that morality should balance constitutional morality with the moral principles of the religion concerned, unless they are diametrically opposed to constitutional values.
- Gender and religion are presented as co‑existent identities; the Board warns against treating them as mutually exclusive in legal analysis.
- It highlights that facially neutral policies may have disparate impacts on minority faiths, citing the “sunrise‑to‑sunset” rule for protected monuments that restricts Namaz in mosques within heritage sites.
Important Facts
• The Sabarimala case originated from the 2018 verdict allowing women of all ages entry into the Lord Ayyappa temple.
• In November 2019, the Supreme Court referred questions on religious freedom to a larger bench for review.
• The AIMPLB’s submissions were prepared by Senior Advocate MR Shamshad and