Watch: Sabarimala women entry case: What happened in the Supreme Court?
The Sabarimala case is back in the Supreme Court, and this time, the debate has taken a sharp turn. During Wednesday’s hearing, the Centre told the court that some of its most progressive judgments may actually be “not good law.” And at the heart of this argument lies one question: how much power should courts really have over religion? What were the three arguments posed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta? What is the Sabarimala women entry case all about?
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
A nine-judge Constitution bench of the is currently hearing the overarching reference stemming from the 2018 Sabarimala temple entry judgment. During the recent hearings, the Centre staunchly defended the traditional restriction on women of menstruating age, arguing that the practice is intrinsically linked to the unique celibate nature of the deity. Furthermore, the Solicitor General criticized the doctrine of , which underpinned several progressive verdicts, arguing that courts should exercise strict restraint and avoid interfering in deeply embedded religious traditions.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
At the heart of the current legal battle is the clash between traditional public morality and the progressive doctrine of . The latter concept, famously championed by B.R. Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly debates, requires adherence to the core democratic principles of the Constitution like justice, liberty, and equality, even if it goes against prevailing societal norms. In the landmark 2018 Sabarimala verdict, the court utilized this doctrine to strike down the ban on women, ruling that religious customs must yield to overarching constitutional values. However, the Centre is now aggressively arguing that this concept is legally vague, highly subjective, and varies drastically from judge to judge. The government contends that in a democratic republic, laws enacted by elected majorities and rooted in majoritarian public morality should take precedence over abstract judicial sentiments. This raises a critical analytical question for UPSC aspirants regarding the exact limits of judicial review and whether unelected judges should leverage open-ended doctrines to invalidate centuries-old cultural and religious practices.
Governance
The Indian judiciary traditionally determines the extent of religious autonomy using the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test, which protects only those rituals fundamental to a faith under (freedom of conscience) and (freedom to manage religious affairs). The Centre is urging the to explicitly recognize the Sabarimala tradition as sui generis (unique to its own kind), arguing it relates specifically to the Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate) character of Lord Ayyappa. By framing the issue this way, the government asserts that sacred theological foundations cannot and should not be evaluated through modern constitutional tests of rationality. They argue that applying intense judicial scrutiny to such deeply embedded beliefs amounts to judicial overreach into religious affairs where courts fundamentally lack theological expertise. The bench must now delicately balance the autonomy of religious denominations to manage their own spiritual affairs against the state's constitutional mandate to initiate broad social reform. For aspirants, understanding how the ERP test has evolved from the historic Shirur Mutt case to this current nine-judge reference is absolutely crucial for GS Paper 2.
Social
The Sabarimala dispute continuously highlights the persistent structural friction between the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by and the collective freedom of religion. While the 2018 judgment viewed the exclusion of women as a severe form of gender-based discrimination that harmed women's dignity, the Centre now vigorously counters that the tradition is actually woman-centric and not born out of patriarchal superiority. During the hearings, the government firmly objected to equating this highly specific temple restriction with the historical and systemic evils of untouchability, which was permanently abolished under . The state pointed out that since men face similar strict entry restrictions in other specific Kerala temples, the Sabarimala rule is not a blanket gender discrimination issue. However, the judicial bench orally cautioned that exclusionary traditions could negatively affect the inclusive and egalitarian ethos of Hinduism. This sociological conflict requires students to critically analyze how the Constitution attempts to harmonize individual fundamental rights with collective religious freedoms, a recurring and potent theme in contemporary Indian society. Ultimately, the comprehensive resolution of this case will set a sweeping precedent for how women's rights interact with orthodox religious customs across all faiths in India.