New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India’s nine-judge Constitution Bench on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, raised critical questions regarding the intersection of individual fundamental rights and essential religious practices. During the ongoing hearing on gender discrimination at religious sites, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned whether the Constitution would remain a silent spectator if a devoted believer is permanently barred from touching a deity based solely on their lineage or birth. The Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is currently examining the broader scope of religious freedom under Article 25 and whether traditional temple characteristics can override constitutional guarantees of equality.
Senior advocate V. Giri, representing the chief priest or ‘thantri’ of the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple, argued that the rituals and ceremonies of a shrine are inseparable from the religion itself. He contended that a devotee’s right to worship is not absolute but must be in harmony with the specific characteristics of the deity. In the case of Sabarimala, he maintained that the deity is a “Naishtika Brahmachari” or perennial celibate, and the restricted entry for women of a certain age group is a practice synchronized with this essential characteristic. Giri further argued that the petitioners had failed to provide evidence that this centuries-old concept was misconceived or non-essential to the faith.
The court’s inquiries highlighted a potential conflict between the “creator and the creation,” with Justice Amanullah remarking that a pure-hearted devotee should not be excluded based on circumstances of birth. In response, Giri suggested that if a practice involves a total ban on certain individuals becoming priests based on birth, it could be addressed through state legislation or Article 25(2)(b). This significant legal battle stems from a 2019 reference to a larger bench following the 2018 verdict that initially lifted the ban on women’s entry. The current proceedings are expected to set a lasting precedent for how the judiciary navigates the delicate balance between freedom of conscience and denominational traditions across all faiths in India.
