Sabarimala women entry case highlights: Supreme Court asks Centre if non-devotees of Lord Ayyappa can challenge customs of Sabarimala temple
The submission was heard by a nine-judge Constitution bench headed by the CJI on the petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
A 9-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing overarching questions related to religious freedom and the Sabarimala temple entry case. During the hearings, the Union Government strongly opposed the use of the 'constitutional morality' doctrine by the judiciary, arguing it is too subjective and calling past landmark verdicts on decriminalizing adultery and same-sex relationships 'not a good law'.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The debate centers around constitutional morality, a progressive judicial doctrine that goes beyond the literal text of the Constitution to uphold its core values like dignity, equality, and liberty. The has extensively used this concept in recent years, notably in striking down Section 377 (decriminalizing homosexuality) and Section 497 (decriminalizing adultery). However, the Centre argues that this doctrine is overly subjective, vague, and should not be used as a touchstone to strike down legislation or age-old religious customs. For UPSC aspirants, this highlights the ongoing friction between judicial activism and legislative sovereignty. Critics, like the Centre, argue that relying on constitutional morality allows judges to impose their personal philosophies over text, whereas proponents see it as a necessary tool to prevent the tyranny of the majority and ensure fundamental rights.
Legal Framework
The core constitutional provisions under scrutiny are (individual right to freely profess and practice religion) and (right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs). Both articles are explicitly subject to 'public order, morality, and health'. The central question before the 9-judge bench is whether the word 'morality' implies conventional public morality (prevailing social norms) or the more modern constitutional morality. Furthermore, the court is re-evaluating the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, which determines which rituals are fundamentally integral to a religion and thus immune from State intervention. The Centre contends that secular courts should not judge the rationality of faith-based traditions unless they violently disrupt public order or health (like human sacrifice). This touches upon the delicate balance between secularism, religious autonomy, and state intervention in India.
Social & Gender Justice
The Sabarimala case represents a profound clash between deeply rooted religious traditions and women's fundamental rights under (Right to Equality) and (Prohibition of Discrimination). During the hearings, the bench severely criticized the notion of treating menstruating women as 'untouchables', emphasizing that biological processes cannot be a ground for exclusion. The broader reference before the bench also encompasses the rights of Muslim women to enter mosques and Parsi women married outside their community to enter fire temples. Another critical issue being debated is locus standi—whether a person who does not belong to a specific faith or denomination can file a challenging its internal customs. The outcome of this case will set a monumental precedent for how India navigates the intersection of patriarchal religious customs and modern gender justice norms.