The seventh day of the Supreme Court hearing on the Sabarimala reference saw the bench stress that universal guidelines for State intervention in religious practices cannot be set in stone; each case will be judged on its own facts.
Key Developments
- Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant warned that the phrase “social welfare and reform” is broad and that the Court cannot lay down blanket rules for future scenarios.
- Justice BV Nagarathna posed a hypothetical: if Kerala law permitted women aged 10‑50 to enter Sabarimala as a reform, would that constitute an invasion of essential religious practice?
- Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium stressed that any State law must first undergo a careful inquiry into whether the excluded practice is part of an ancient tradition, custom or usage before it can be justified under Article 25(2)(b).
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the legislative competence under Article 25(2)(b) as a “narrow window”, questioning whether directives from the Directive Principles of State Policy can be invoked as a basis for reform.
Important Facts
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, examined the interplay between Article 25(1) rights and the restrictions imposed by Part III. They reiterated that the State, as the people's representative, may act against social evils, but such action must be assessed case‑by‑case.
Exam Relevance
- Understanding the limits of Article 25(2)(b) is essential for GS 2 questions on constitutional law and the balance between individual rights and State policy.
- The ERP test and its evolving jurisprudence illustrate how courts interpret religious freedom, a frequent GS 2 topic.
- The debate highlights the role of the Directive Principles in shaping legislation, linking constitutional morality with social reform—a point often asked in essay and ethics papers.
- The Sabarimala controversy serves as a case study for the interaction of law, religion, gender rights, and federalism, relevant for both GS 2 and GS 4.
Way Forward
The Court indicated that future judgments will continue to adopt a fact‑specific approach, examining the historical origin of the practice, its essentiality, and the genuine intent of the State. Aspirants should monitor subsequent hearings for the final pronouncement, which will clarify the scope of State power under Article 25(2)(b) and potentially reshape the jurisprudence on religious freedom in India.