Supreme Court hearing on Sabarimala entry issue
The nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court is examining whether a believer can be barred from touching the deity solely on the basis of birth. The case stems from the 2018 judgment that opened the Sabarimala Temple to women of all ages. Senior Advocate V Giri, representing the chief priest (Thanthri), argues that the right to worship must align with the deity’s characteristics, notably its perpetual celibacy.
Key developments in the hearing (Day 6)
- Justice Article 25 was invoked to question if the Constitution can intervene when birth‑based exclusion is imposed.
- Justice BV Nagarathna emphasized that a believer’s rationality is not for a non‑believer to judge.
- Justice Prasanna B Varale warned against treating religious practices as immutable, noting that technology and education can reshape belief systems.
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi probed whether an individual believer can challenge denominational customs that the court traditionally respects.
- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah raised a hypothetical: if a devotee is barred from touching the creator because of lineage, does that violate constitutional guarantees?
- Justice MM Sundresh suggested that the issue may fall under Article 25(2)(b) concerning social reform.
Important facts
The bench comprises Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and eight other judges, including Justice Mahadevan, who cited the Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam precedent. Giri contended that a believer cannot question the denominational practice without losing the essence of his faith. He also argued that restricting temple duties to qualified persons is not untouchability but a matter of ritual purity governed by Agamas.
UPSC relevance
This case touches upon several core areas of the UPSC syllabus: constitutional law (fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26), the balance between individual liberty and religious freedom, and the role of the judiciary in social reform. It also illustrates how judicial interpretation can affect traditional customs, a recurring theme in GS 2 (Polity) and GS 4 (Ethics) papers.
Way forward
Legal scholars anticipate that the Court may delineate the limits of Article 26 vis‑à‑vis birth‑based exclusions. A nuanced judgment could set a precedent for reconciling constitutional guarantees with age‑old religious practices, potentially prompting legislative action under the social‑reform clause of Article 25(2)(b). Aspirants should monitor the final verdict for its implications on religious liberty, gender equality, and the scope of judicial activism.