Supreme Court Bench Hear Sabarimala Reference: Issues of Constitutional Morality and Religious Freedom

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <strong><span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body in India, empowered to interpret the Constitution and exercise judicial review (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span></strong> convened a multi‑day hearing on the Sabarimala reference, examining whether age‑based entry restrictions and other temple customs violate the Constitution. The bench, headed by <strong>CJI Surya Kant</strong> and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, heard arguments from the Centre, petitioners and intervenors.</p> <h3>Key Developments (Day 3 & Day 4)</h3> <ul> <li>The Court observed that excluding non‑devotees from temple premises could impact the broader fabric of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Hinduism — the major religious tradition of India, encompassing diverse beliefs, rituals and temple practices (GS1: Culture)">Hinduism</span> and that any restriction must be justified on constitutional grounds.</li> <li>It was reiterated that a temple’s <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sampradaya — a religious tradition or sect within Hinduism, often linked to specific deities or rituals (GS1: Culture)">sampradaya</span> must be respected when visitors are required to follow its customs, but the Court warned against imposing such norms on outsiders.</li> <li>Discussions highlighted that certain temples historically allow only women, indicating that gender‑based entry rules are not uniformly prohibited.</li> <li>The bench stressed that declaring the belief of millions "wrong" is a delicate task, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that respects faith while upholding constitutional values.</li> <li>Justices warned against “hollowing out” religion in the name of social reform, underscoring the principle of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional Morality — the doctrine that constitutional values must guide the interpretation of laws and policies, even when they conflict with popular sentiment (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span>.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The hearing touched upon several legal doctrines:</p> <ul> <li><span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial Review — the power of courts to examine the legality of legislative and executive actions and strike down those inconsistent with the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">Judicial Review</span> remains available for "superstitious" or discriminatory practices, contrary to the argument that it is barred.</li> <li>The Centre questioned the Supreme Court’s earlier verdicts de‑criminalising adultery and homosexuality, arguing that they were decided on a broader notion of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional Morality — see above (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span> rather than a narrow reading of the text.</li> <li>Both parties invoked the right to <span class="key-term" data-definition="Religious Freedom — the constitutional guarantee that individuals may practice and profess their religion without undue interference (GS2: Polity)">religious freedom</span> under Article 25, while also acknowledging the State’s duty to ensure equality.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding this case is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) as it illustrates the tension between individual rights, collective religious practices, and the doctrine of constitutional morality. Aspirants should note how the Court balances <span class="key-term" data-definition="Fundamental Rights — basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including equality and freedom of religion (GS2: Polity)">Fundamental Rights</span> against the State’s regulatory powers. The composition of the bench also reflects the importance of judicial diversity in interpreting complex socio‑legal issues.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>While the Court has not yet delivered a final judgment, the following steps are likely:</p> <ul> <li>Further hearings to examine empirical data on temple attendance and the impact of gender‑based restrictions.</li> <li>Possible referral to a larger bench for a definitive ruling on the interplay of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional Morality — see above (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span> and religious customs.</li> <li>Guidelines may be issued to ensure that any restriction on temple entry is narrowly tailored, non‑discriminatory and consistent with the Constitution.</li> </ul> <p>For UPSC preparation, candidates should track the final verdict, analyse the Court’s reasoning, and relate it to broader themes of secularism, social reform and the protection of minority rights in India.</p>