Jain Organisations Seek Supreme Court Protection of Religious Autonomy in Sabarimala Reference The Jain trusts Gitarth Ganga, Jyot, Shree Tapagacchiya Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyan Mandir Trust and others have filed a detailed intervention before the Supreme Court in the ongoing Sabarimala Reference . Their core contention is that the internal autonomy of a religion to define its own practices must be insulated from external judicial or legislative interference. Key Developments Jain organisations argue that only adherents of a religion can question its practices; outsiders should not file PILs on behalf of another faith. They assert that Article 25 protects internal religious matters and that courts should not decide what constitutes a religious practice. The submissions distinguish two limited scenarios where courts may intervene: (a) unresolved intra‑religious disputes, and (b) State legislation that impinges on religious practice, requiring a test of whether the restriction falls within the six grounds of Article 25(2). The term “essential” introduced in the Shirur Mutt judgment is criticised as extraneous to the Constitution’s text. Applicants propose elevating Articles 25 and 26 to the basic structure of the Constitution, linking them with Articles 14, 19 and 21. The bench of nine judges is scheduled to hear the matter from 7 April 2026 . Important Facts from the Submission 1. Religion is not a creation of the Constitution ; therefore, the State cannot define its contours. 2. The word “practice” in Article 25 is broader than “worship”, covering rites, administration of temples and daily religious life, limiting State regulation. 3. Determining the scope of a religious practice is itself a religious act and should be decided internally. 4. State acquisition of religious property is permissible only for assets dedicated