Union Govt Defends Pluralistic Definition of Hinduism in Sabarimala Supreme Court Hearing

Union Government’s Stand on Defining Hinduism in the Sabarimala Case The Union has submitted its written arguments before the Supreme Court on the upcoming nine‑judge hearing of the Sabarimala writ petitions. The government warns that a narrow, "straitjacket" definition of a religious denomination or of what is an "essential" practice would compress the inherent pluralism of Hinduism . Key Developments April 7, 2026 : A nine‑judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant will hear the Sabarimala writ and review petitions. The Union’s submission, prepared by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta , challenges the September 2018 judgment that denied a distinct "Ayyappan" denomination under Article 26 . The 2018 five‑judge verdict had also held that the ban on women aged 10‑50 entering Sabarimala was not an "ancient custom" protected by Article 25 . Important Facts The September 2018 judgment observed that there is "no identified group called ‘Ayyappans’" and that any Hindu devotee could visit the temple. It likened the exclusion of menstruating women to untouchability, calling it a social evil, and noted that women already worship at other Ayyappa shrines. The Union argues that imposing a rigid definition of denomination or essential practice would be "doctrinally flawed and constitutionally unsafe" because Hinduism lacks a single founder, scripture, or mandatory code. UPSC Relevance Understanding the interplay between Article 25 and Article 26 is crucial for GS‑2 questions on religious freedom and secularism. The case also illustrates how the judiciary interprets "essential religious practice" – a concept frequently examined in ethics and polity papers. Moreover, the pluralistic nature of Hinduism challenges any monolithic legal definition, a point relevant to questions on cultural diversity and constitutional law. Way Forward The Bench will likely address two intertwined issues: (i) whether the Constitution permits the Court to delineate "essential" practices for a religion lacking a codified creed, and (ii) the extent of judicial intervention in matters of faith. Aspirants should monitor the judgment for its impact on future cases involving personal laws, religious endowments, and the balance between individual rights and religious autonomy.