On Tuesday, April 7th, the central government made its definitive stance known regarding the highly debated restrictions at the iconic Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The Centre officially threw its support behind the traditional ban that prevents women of menstruating age from entering the sacred site.

Representing the Modi government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before the Supreme Court that the issue is a matter of denominational autonomy and deep-seated religious faith, placing it firmly outside the scope of standard judicial scrutiny.

This monumental case is currently being heard by a formidable nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant. The bench is further composed of Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Mehta acknowledged that while the legislature absolutely has the authority to step in and correct practices that lack a scientific foundation, matters of faith operate under a different framework. He argued that participating in religious customs is a matter of reverence rather than a suppression of individual liberties. He asserted to the court: “We have to respect every denomination’s practice, not everything is related to dignity or bodily freedom. If I go to a mazar or a gurudwara and if I have to cover my head, I can’t say my dignity, right or choice is taken away.”

To clarify the practical limits of the court’s intervention, Mehta presented a hypothetical scenario involving Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to constitutional remedies. He explained that if an individual were to approach the court arguing that human sacrifice is an essential part of their personal faith, the court would not need to deliberate on whether the act is genuinely religious. Instead, the plea could be outright rejected simply because it represents a direct and severe violation of public order, health, and general morality.

Expanding on this point, Mehta cautioned the justices against evaluating ancient spiritual traditions through the lens of modern secular reasoning. He argued that forcing religious practices to conform to contemporary judicial standards is an overstep. He submitted: “It is submitted that the court should expressly decline a model of review that asks whether a practice is ‘rational,’ ‘modern,’ ‘scientifically defensible,’ ‘acceptable to judicial sensibilities,’ ‘unpopular views’ or based upon broad and subjective ‘doctrines’ of ‘transformative constitutionalism’ or ‘constitutional morality.’ Such an inquiry is not constitutional review; rather, it would be a substitution of judicial philosophy for religious self-understanding, depending upon the subjective view of the bench, which is not trained in interpreting religious texts.”

Mehta further explained that the constitutional guarantees surrounding religion exist for this exact reason. “The Constitution protects religious freedom precisely because the protected field contains convictions, rituals, disciplines, and forms of worship that may not satisfy secular standards of reason, utility or majoritarian taste,” he conveyed.

A central pillar of the Solicitor General's defense was a critique of the concept of "constitutional morality," which he pointed out is not explicitly established within the text of the Constitution itself. He warned the bench that using this abstract idea to override established traditions carries heavy implications. “It is pertinent to note that ‘constitutional morality’ is not textually present in the Constitution. Rather, it is a judicially evolved, vague and indeterminate concept. Hence, the expansion of the term ‘morality’, which is explicitly referred to in the Constitution to mean and include ‘constitutional morality,’ amounts to not only judicial overreach but an amendment of the Constitution,” Mehta submitted.

Highlighting the inherent risks of judicial authorities interpreting complex religious doctrines, Mehta painted a picture of India's incredibly diverse social fabric. “Apart from the fact that the court would not possess either expertise or scholarship on religious issues, holy books, scriptures, texts, et cetera, further in the context of India, which does not follow only one particular theistic religion but has a pluralistic society including Hindus, Muslims, Christians and other religions, each religion has its different sections or denominations, and each denomination and section has their own faith, belief and expression for worship. The founding fathers were fully conscious of this pluralism of the country and the internal pluralism amongst each religion,” he emphasized.

To understand the magnitude of this current nine-judge bench hearing, one must look back at the recent judicial history of the dispute. In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a historic 4:1 majority ruling. That judgment declared the centuries-old Hindu practice of barring women between the ages of 10 and 50 from the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple to be unlawful and unconstitutional, effectively lifting the prohibition.

However, the legal landscape shifted again just over a year later. On November 14th, 2019, a five-judge bench led by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued a 3:2 majority decision, referring the broader issue of gender discrimination in places of worship to a larger bench. This bench framed several general questions regarding religious freedom, noting that such profound and widespread issues could not be effectively resolved without evaluating specific, broader case data.

As a result, the implications of the current Sabarimala hearings stretch far beyond a single temple. The ongoing review has raised parallel concerns regarding restrictions in other faiths as well. This includes the debate over Muslim women’s access to mosques and dargahs, alongside the rights of Parsi women who have married non-Parsi men to access the sacred fireplace of an Agiary. Recognizing the immense gravity of these interconnected issues, the apex court pronounced earlier on February 16th that the final, decisive hearings for this monumental case would take place continuously from April 7th through April 22nd.