Supreme Court Observes Difficulty in Framing Uniform Rules for State Intervention in Religious Practices
On 22 April 2026, the nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Sabarimala reference. The Court reiterated that it cannot lay down blanket guidelines for future cases on when the State may intervene in religion under Article 25(2)(b). Each situation will be judged on its own facts.
Key Developments
- The Chief Justice emphasized that "social welfare and reform" is a broad term and that the State, as the people's representative, may act against social evils, but no universal rule can be set.
- Justice BV Nagarathna posed a hypothetical: if Kerala enacted a law permitting women aged 10‑50 to enter Sabarimala, would that be a valid reform or an infringement of essential religious practice?
- Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium argued that the Court must first examine whether the exclusion is rooted in ancient tradition, custom, or usage before deeming any State intervention permissible.
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the provision as a "narrow window" and queried whether the Directive Principles could justify interference.
- The bench revisited the Shirur Mutt judgment to underline the historical basis of the