New Delhi: The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti, an umbrella organization representing over 127 sects of Sanatan Dharma, has moved to intervene in the Sabarimala Temple entry case scheduled for a hearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench on April 7. The Samiti argues that secular courts are not equipped to act as experts in theological matters and should refrain from defining “essential religious practices.” Representing nearly 18.5 lakh priests and 12 lakh seers, the body contends that religious beliefs are sacred to followers and that judicial interference should be restricted only to instances where practices violate public order, morality, or health.
The upcoming hearing, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, seeks to establish broad constitutional principles regarding the interplay between the right to equality under Article 14 and the freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26. The Sant Samiti maintains that the right to profess and practice religion according to established tenets should not be overridden by a generalized application of equality. They specifically support the entry restrictions at the Sabarimala shrine, noting that specific purity rituals and traditions are integral to the faith of the devotees who view the deity as an eternal celibate.
This perspective is echoed by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which has also cautioned the Supreme Court against judicial scrutiny that might encroach upon religious freedoms. The nine-judge Bench has expanded its scope beyond the Sabarimala issue to examine discriminatory practices across various religions. This larger inquiry aims to resolve long-standing questions, such as the definition of “morality” within a religious context and the extent to which Public Interest Litigations (PILs) can challenge the traditions of a faith to which the petitioner does not belong.
The legal journey began with a 2018 verdict that allowed women of all ages into the Lord Ayyappa temple, a decision that sparked widespread protests and a dissenting opinion from Justice Indu Malhotra. Following a series of review petitions, the matter was referred to a larger bench to enunciate clear constitutional guidelines. With the central government supporting the review of the original 2018 decision, the Supreme Court expects to conclude these pivotal hearings by April 22, potentially reshaping the legal landscape of religious rights in India.
