Overview
The Supreme Court is hearing the Sabarimala reference for the fourth consecutive day. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Travancore Devaswom Board and argued that petitions questioning long‑standing religious customs should face a very high threshold.
Key Developments (Bullet Points)
- Singhvi urged the nine‑judge bench to treat PIL on religious matters as exceptional, proposing a threshold ten times higher than for ordinary PILs.
- Justice Bagchi raised a hypothetical scenario of a sect preaching mass suicide, asking whether the Court could intervene on a PIL filed by a non‑believer.
- Chief Justice Surya Kant described the difficulty of declaring the faith of millions wrong, hinting that the Court might act suo motu in extreme cases.
- Justices Nagarathna and Sundresh stressed that a PIL filed by a third‑party non‑devotee would likely be dismissed as an "interloper".
- Singhvi highlighted the unique theological character of the Sabarimala deity, arguing that any constitutional challenge must consider the temple’s specific doctrine of celibacy.
Important Facts
- The bench comprises CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
- The contested practice bars women aged 10‑50 from entry, while permitting those below 10 and above 50 to worship.
- Singhvi argued that the restriction is age‑based, not gender‑based, and must be examined under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution.
- He also referenced Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b), contending that the temple’s management of its own religious affairs is constitutionally protected.
UPSC Relevance
The debate touches upon several core GS2 topics: the balance between Article 32 and the doctrine of religious freedom; the limits of judicial intervention in personal law and temple administration; and the interpretation of equality clauses (Articles 14 & 15) in the context of age‑based classifications. Understanding the jurisprudential arguments helps aspirants analyse how the Constitution mediates between individual rights and collective religious sentiment.
Way Forward
While the Court has not yet ruled, the arguments suggest a cautious approach: any PIL challenging a religious practice must demonstrate a compelling public interest beyond doctrinal disagreement. Future judgments are likely to delineate clearer criteria for "inter‑religious" PILs and may set precedents on when the Supreme Court can act suo motu. Aspirants should monitor subsequent orders for insights into constitutional balancing tests and the evolving jurisprudence on religious liberty.