Supreme Court Says Courts Can Review Superstitious Practices Violating Public Order – Sabarimala Reference — UPSC Current Affairs

The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench, hearing the Sabarimala reference, affirmed that courts can intervene against religious practices deemed superstitious if they violate public order, morality or health, despite Article 25(2)(b) granting legislative reform powers. The discussion clarified the scope of Essential Religious Practice (ERP) and underscored the judiciary’s residual authority to strike down harmful customs, a key point for UPSC Polity preparation.

The nine‑judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court examined a reference on Sabarimala, focusing on whether courts can strike down religious customs that amount to superstition and breach public order, morality or health. Key Developments Chief Justice Surya Kant led the bench, which includes Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that defining "superstition" is a legislative function under Article 25(2)(b) , not a judicial one. Justice Amanullah countered, asserting that the court retains the power of judicial review to label a practice as superstition, after which the legislature may legislate. The bench discussed the scope of the ERP test, emphasizing that it must be assessed from the religion’s own philosophical perspective. Justice Bagchi highlighted that even if the legislature is silent, courts can intervene when a practice threatens public health, morality or order, citing examples like human sacrifice or witchcraft. Important Facts The reference stems from the case KANTARU RAJEEVARU v. INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018). The Union cited the Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act as a model for legislative action. The bench examined whether courts can, on their own, prohibit practices like witchcraft when no specific law exists. UPSC Relevance Understanding the balance between Article 25 and judicial review is crucial for GS‑2 questions on constitutional law. The ERP doctrine, originating from the 1954 Shri Shirur Mutt case, is a recurring theme in jurisprudence exams. The debate illustrates the secular court’s limited competence in theological matters, a point often asked in ethics and governance papers. Way Forward The bench is likely to reaffirm that while courts must respect religious autonomy, they cannot abdicate their constitutional duty to protect public order, morality and health. Future legislation may be prompted to codify prohibitions against harmful superstitious practices, but judicial oversight will remain a residual safeguard.

<p>The nine‑judge Constitution bench of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body in India, vested with the power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> examined a reference on Sabarimala, focusing on whether courts can strike down religious customs that amount to superstition and breach public order, morality or health.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Chief Justice <strong>Surya Kant</strong> led the bench, which includes Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.</li> <li>Solicitor General <strong>Tushar Mehta</strong> argued that defining "superstition" is a legislative function under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(2)(b) — constitutional provision allowing the State to make laws for reform or restriction of any religious practice (GS2: Polity)">Article 25(2)(b)</span>, not a judicial one.</li> <li>Justice Amanullah countered, asserting that the court retains the power of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial Review — the authority of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions (GS2: Polity)">judicial review</span> to label a practice as superstition, after which the legislature may legislate.</li> <li>The bench discussed the scope of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practice (ERP) — a doctrinal test to determine if a religious practice is fundamental to a faith and thus protected under Articles 25 and 26 (GS2: Polity)">ERP</span> test, emphasizing that it must be assessed from the religion’s own philosophical perspective.</li> <li>Justice Bagchi highlighted that even if the legislature is silent, courts can intervene when a practice threatens public health, morality or order, citing examples like human sacrifice or witchcraft.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The reference stems from the case <em>KANTARU RAJEEVARU v. INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION</em> (R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018). The Union cited the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act — state legislation (Maharashtra 2013, Karnataka 2017) aimed at curbing harmful superstitious practices (GS3: Society)">Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act</span> as a model for legislative action. The bench examined whether courts can, on their own, prohibit practices like witchcraft when no specific law exists.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding the balance between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and judicial review is crucial for GS‑2 questions on constitutional law. The ERP doctrine, originating from the 1954 <em>Shri Shirur Mutt</em> case, is a recurring theme in jurisprudence exams. The debate illustrates the secular court’s limited competence in theological matters, a point often asked in ethics and governance papers.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The bench is likely to reaffirm that while courts must respect religious autonomy, they cannot abdicate their constitutional duty to protect public order, morality and health. Future legislation may be prompted to codify prohibitions against harmful superstitious practices, but judicial oversight will remain a residual safeguard.</p>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay