New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that it has the authority and jurisdiction to determine whether a religious practice can be termed “superstitious,” during ongoing hearings related to gender discrimination in places of worship, including the Sabarimala Temple.
The remarks came during proceedings before a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which is examining the scope of religious freedom and constitutional rights across faiths.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that it is not for courts to decide whether a practice is superstitious. He maintained that under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, such determinations should be left to the legislature, which can enact reform laws where necessary.
Mehta also cautioned that courts, being experts in law and not religion, may lack the scholarly competence to evaluate religious beliefs. He emphasised India’s diversity, noting that what may be considered superstition in one region could be a legitimate religious practice in another.
However, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah disagreed, calling the argument “too simplistic” and asserting that courts do have the jurisdiction to assess such issues when brought before them. He clarified that while the legislature may subsequently act, the judiciary cannot abdicate its responsibility in constitutional matters.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised a hypothetical question on whether practices like witchcraft, if claimed as religious, could still be protected, and whether courts could intervene in the absence of legislative action under constitutional provisions such as Article 32.
In response, Mehta said judicial intervention is permissible only on grounds such as health, morality, and public order—not merely because a practice is termed superstition.
Justice B V Nagarathna added that courts should evaluate “essential religious practices” through the philosophical lens of the concerned religion, rather than imposing external standards.
The case stems from the landmark Sabarimala Verdict 2018, where the Supreme Court had allowed entry of women of all ages into the temple, striking down the traditional ban on women aged 10–50. The matter was later referred to a larger Bench in 2019 to address broader constitutional questions on religious freedom and equality.
The hearing is ongoing and is expected to shape key legal principles governing the balance between faith and fundamental rights in India.
