Nine-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI Surya Kant questions limits of judicial intervention in faith, warns against diluting essential religious practices in the name of reform
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday made significant observations on the delicate balance between religious beliefs and judicial scrutiny, stating that one of the most challenging tasks for courts is to declare the faith of millions as “wrong or erroneous.” The remarks came during the ongoing hearing of a crucial reference linked to the Sabarimala Temple entry issue.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, emphasised that religion cannot be stripped of its essential practices under the guise of social reform, underlining the judiciary’s cautious approach in matters of faith.
“The most difficult task for a court might be how to give a declaration that the belief of millions of people is wrong or erroneous,” CJI Kant observed during the proceedings.
Judicial Concerns Over PILs in Religious Matters
The Bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, deliberated extensively on the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in sensitive religious matters.
Justice Sundresh raised a critical question on whether courts can adjudicate such issues without hearing representatives of millions of devotees, pointing to the complexities involved in judicial intervention in faith-based practices.
Justice Nagarathna echoed similar concerns, cautioning against entertaining PILs filed by individuals with no direct stake.
“We cannot hollow out religion in the name of social welfare reform,” Justice Nagarathna remarked, stressing that core religious tenets must be preserved.
Background: Sabarimala Verdict and Legal Developments
The ongoing reference stems from the landmark September 2018 verdict, where a five-judge Constitution Bench, in a 4:1 majority, allowed entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple, overturning the long-standing restriction on women of menstruating age.
The ruling triggered widespread protests across Kerala, with multiple review petitions filed by individuals and organizations challenging the judgment.
In November 2019, the apex court, while hearing review petitions, refrained from delivering a final verdict and instead referred broader constitutional questions to a larger Bench.
Key Constitutional Questions Under Review
The present nine-judge Bench is examining critical issues, including:
- The scope of the Essential Religious Practices Test
- The balance between Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (right to equality)
- Judicial inconsistencies between landmark rulings such as the Shirur Mutt case and the Durgah Committee case
The outcome of this reference is expected to have far-reaching implications on religious freedoms and constitutional interpretation in India, potentially shaping future judicial approaches to faith-based disputes.
