A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India heard a reference concerning the Sabarimala temple entry case and broader constitutional rights [1].
The proceedings matter because the court is reviewing a 2018 judgment that allowed women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala shrine. The outcome could redefine the balance between denominational autonomy and gender equality across multiple faiths in India [2, 3].
The hearings began on June 21, 2024, and continued for 16 days [3, 4]. The bench, which included Justice B.V. Nagarathna, examined seven constitutional questions [1]. These questions covered issues of faith, equality, constitutional morality, and denominational rights [1, 2].
Beyond the Sabarimala temple, the court's scope extended to other religious restrictions. The reference included the rights of Muslim women to enter mosques, and Parsi women to enter fire temples [1, 2]. The bench also addressed the practice of female genital mutilation within the Dawoodi Bohra community [1, 3].
During the proceedings, Justice B.V. Nagarathna said, "Social ill cannot be branded as ‘religious practice’" [3]. The court also scrutinized the specific ban at the Sabarimala Temple that prevents devotees from touching the deity [5].
However, the government of India presented a different perspective on the intersection of law and faith. A spokesperson for the government said the issue falls squarely within the domain of religious faith and denominational autonomy [2].
The court's deliberation focused on whether certain religious customs are protected from judicial review, or if they must yield to the constitutional mandate of equality [2]. The 16-day hearing process concluded before the court reserved its verdict [4].
“"Social ill cannot be branded as ‘religious practice’."”
This reference represents a significant judicial effort to harmonize religious freedom with fundamental human rights. By expanding the scope from a single temple in Kerala to include Parsi and Muslim traditions, the court is seeking a universal constitutional standard for gender equality in religious spaces. The final ruling will determine if 'denominational autonomy' can legally justify the exclusion of women or the continuation of harmful traditional practices.
