Sabarimala review: A strict definition of ‘denomination’, ‘essential religious practices’ will compress plural and diverse Hinduism, Centre tells SC
Eight years ago, a majority judgment of September 2018 had rejected ‘Ayyappans’ as a religious denomination and dismissed prohibition on women aged between 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala temple as an essential religious practice
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Union government submitted to a nine-judge Supreme Court bench that establishing strict definitions for a 'religious denomination' or 'essential religious practices' would undermine the inherently diverse and pluralistic nature of Hinduism. This submission comes ahead of the review hearings for the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, which had previously struck down the customary ban on women aged 10-50 from entering the temple.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The core of this debate revolves around (individual right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion) and (right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion). The Supreme Court has historically used the , a legal test devised in the landmark of 1954, to decide which religious rituals enjoy constitutional protection. The Centre argues that this doctrine forces a 'straitjacket' definition that is incompatible with Hinduism, which lacks a single canonical text, central authority, or mandatory set of practices. By applying inflexible rules, the court risks denying protections to minor sects and fluid traditions that cannot easily prove their customs are 'essential' in a formal sense. For UPSC aspirants, the key constitutional question is whether secular courts possess the theological expertise to determine what is absolutely essential to a religion, especially decentralized ones.
Social
The 2018 Sabarimala judgment highlighted a profound clash between women's rights and customary religious practices. The majority opinion interpreted the exclusion of women in their reproductive years not merely as discrimination, but as a practice akin to untouchability, theoretically violating the spirit of (abolition of untouchability). The court asserted that any exclusion based on a biological attribute treats women as children of a 'lesser God'. Conversely, the Centre's current stance warns that overriding minor community beliefs in the name of modernization erases vital intrareligious diversity. In the Mains examination, this connects to the broader theme of how the Indian state negotiates social reform against deeply entrenched patriarchal or traditional norms, balancing individual equality against collective religious freedom.
Judiciary
This development underscores the ongoing debate over constitutional morality (adherence to the core principles of the Constitution) versus judicial overreach (when the judiciary exceeds its mandate and encroaches on other domains). The nine-judge bench of the is tasked with outlining the exact boundaries within which constitutional courts can intervene in core matters of faith and doctrine. While the judiciary has a fundamental duty to protect civil rights against discriminatory traditions, critics argue that applying rational, constitutional tests to matters of pure belief, doctrine, and spiritual symbolism is inherently flawed. UPSC can test this dynamic by asking whether the judiciary should actively act as a social reformer or strictly limit itself to interpreting the law, leaving faith-based self-regulation to the communities themselves.