Can state permit entry of women in Sabarimala temple for social reform, asks Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether a State law that expressly permits entry of young women into the Sabarimala temple, in the name of social reform, would amount to an invasion of religious practice or could be sustained as a valid reform measure.

A nine judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also said it would be difficult to lay down any universal or prospective guidelines as to when the State can intervene in religious practices in the name of social reform, since such questions would necessarily depend on the facts of each case.

The court was hearing a batch of review petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.

The bench also comprised Justices B V Nagarathna, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, M M Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi

During the hearing, the bench said the State, as a representative of the people's will, may legitimately act to address social evils, but judicial assessment would always be context-specific.

"State represents the will of the people and if the people want certain social evils to be reformed, probably that power can be exercised. But it is very difficult for us to lay down any future guidance. It will always depend on case to case as to whether the reforms fall under Article 25(2)(b) or, in the name of reforms, it amounts to an infringement of a religious practice," the bench said.

Hearing the arguments, Justice Nagarathna sought to know if a State law that expressly permits entry of young women into the Sabarimala temple, in the name of social reform, would amount to an invasion of religious practice or could be sustained as a valid reform measure.

"If the Kerala rules would have said in the name of social reforms, the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 to the temple is permitted, is it an invasion or could we say it is not an essential practice and therefore upheld," she asked.

Answering the question, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium said if a practice is limited in scope, grounded in rational considerations, and forms part of an established denominational tradition, it would ordinarily merit respect as part of that religious practice.

He contended the expression "social welfare and reform" cannot be used as a mere pretext to invade religious freedoms protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. He, however, emphasised superstitious practices which are abhorrent, can be regulated by social reform laws.

Representing President of VHP Kerala and General Secretary of the Sabarimala Karma Samiti, senior advocate Aryama Sundaram contended that the Constitution seeks to achieve gender equality in areas like employment and social life, this principle does not extend to access to places of worship or the exercise of religious freedom, even under the Directive Principles.

He said that temples are fundamentally "a board of the deity", where worship is shaped by the specific form and tradition associated with that deity, and therefore religious practices must be understood within that framework.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, said, "Constitutional morality has no place in creating a restriction, the moment you add constitutional morality you are either expanding or adding another restriction." Rohatgi submitted.

The hearing will continue on Thursday.