New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India emphasized on Wednesday that Hinduism is fundamentally a way of life, noting that it is not essential for an individual to visit temples or perform religious rituals to maintain their identity as a Hindu. Presiding over a nine-judge Constitution Bench during the Sabarimala review hearings, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that even a simple act, such as lighting a lamp inside one’s home, is sufficient to demonstrate one’s religious belief. These comments highlight a broad judicial interpretation of faith, focusing on personal conviction rather than institutionalized practices.
Justice BV Nagarathna, a member of the bench, supported this view by stating that faith is an individual matter and that no one should obstruct an individual’s personal practice of their religion. She noted that being ritualistic is not a prerequisite for being a Hindu, reinforcing the idea that Indian society is built upon a complex civilization defined by its pluralities and diversities. The bench is currently addressing the fifteenth day of hearings related to petitions seeking a review of the 2018 verdict, which overturned the long-standing restriction on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala.
The discussion was prompted by senior counsel G Mohan Gopal, representing an intervenor, who argued that the top court should not ignore calls for social justice emerging from within religious communities. Gopal questioned the 1966 legal definition that classified a Hindu as someone who accepts the Vedas as the highest authority. He pointed out that many modern individuals classified as Hindus may not strictly adhere to this spiritual authority, prompting the court’s clarification on the flexible and inclusive nature of the faith in a modern context.
Beyond the Sabarimala case, the nine-judge bench is examining the wider scope of religious freedom across various faiths, including practices within the Dawoodi Bohra community. The court expressed concern that over-adjudicating specific religious rituals could potentially lead to the fragmentation of established religious structures. The justices emphasized that while the law must progress, the core relationship between human beings and religion remains a constant in Indian society that must be carefully balanced against necessary constitutional reforms.
This ongoing review stems from a 2018 ruling where a five-judge bench allowed women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple by a four-to-one majority. Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole dissenting voice in that decision, supporting the traditional practices of the temple. The case was later expanded in 2019 to include seven major issues regarding discriminatory practices across various religions, all of which are now being deliberated by the current Constitution Bench to set a definitive precedent for the country’s pluralistic legal framework.
