Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Constitutional Questions in Sabarimala Case Reference

The Sabarimala temple in Kerala is dedicated to Lord Ayyappan, a celibate deity. For centuries, women of menstruating age (10-50 years) were traditionally prohibited from entering the temple, a custom based on specific religious beliefs.

In 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, ruled that the temple's ban on women's entry was unconstitutional, infringing upon fundamental rights to equality, liberty, and freedom of religion.

This verdict sparked widespread protests and numerous review petitions. The current proceedings involve the Supreme Court addressing a set of larger constitutional questions referred by a subsequent bench in 2019, which raised doubts about the scope of judicial intervention in religious practices. Justice B. V. Nagarathna's observation highlights the intersection of constitutional morality, gender equality, and religious customs, arguing against practices that stigmatize women on biological grounds. The court is now examining whether fundamental rights of religious denominations can override individual fundamental rights. This ongoing legal debate is highly significant for Indian polity, particularly concerning the interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25-26 of the Constitution. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for religious practices across various faiths, the scope of judicial review in matters of faith, and the enforcement of gender equality in public and private spheres. It remains a crucial topic for understanding the interplay between secularism, religious freedom, and social reform in India.