New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India concluded a marathon 16-day hearing on Thursday, reserving its judgement on a series of critical petitions concerning discrimination against women at religious sites. Led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, the nine-judge Constitution Bench is tasked with defining the delicate balance between individual religious freedom and the autonomy of religious denominations. The proceedings, which saw a robust exchange between some of the country’s finest legal minds, focused on the centuries-old restrictions at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, alongside similar issues involving the entry of women into mosques and Parsi Agiaries.
Throughout the hearings, the Centre maintained a firm stance, urging the court to honour the traditional restrictions on women of menstruating age at the Ayyappa shrine. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that such matters reside within the heart of religious faith and denominational autonomy, suggesting they should remain beyond the purview of judicial review. This position directly challenges the 2018 majority verdict which had previously struck down the ban as unconstitutional, sparking a national debate on whether “Constitutional morality” should override long-standing religious practices.
The bench, which includes Justices B.V. Nagarathna and M.M. Sundresh among others, is now set to address seven fundamental questions framed to clarify the scope of Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution. These questions delve into whether the rights of a religious group are subject to other fundamental rights and if a person outside a specific faith has the standing to challenge its internal practices through public interest litigation. The eventual ruling is expected to establish a landmark judicial policy that will provide “substantial and complete justice” across multiple faiths, potentially reshaping how secular law interacts with sacred traditions in Canada’s democratic peer, India.
As the legal community and the public wait for the final order, the stakes could not be higher for the intersection of gender equality and religious liberty. The court’s decision to reserve its order marks the end of an intensive period of deliberation that sought to reconcile modern constitutional values with deep-seated cultural heritage. While the previous 2018 ruling favoured reform, the current larger bench has the daunting task of providing a definitive interpretation that will govern the rights of millions of worshippers and the administrative freedom of religious institutions for decades to come.
