SC says it can hold what superstition in a religion is; Centre opposes court's response in Sabarimala case

The entry of women in certain temples has been restricted since ages citing religious practices and scriptures, one of them being the revered Sabarimala shrine in Kerala, India.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, in a nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heard petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

In response to the Centre's submission that a secular court cannot decide the issue as judges are experts in the field of law, not religion, the SC observed that it has the right and jurisdiction to hold what is a superstitious practice in a religion.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, asked how the court decides what a superstitious practice is. "Even assuming that there is a superstitious practice," he said, "It is not for the court to determine that it is superstition. Under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, it is for the legislature to step in and enact a reform law."

"The legislature can say that a particular practice is superstition and requires reform. There are several such statutes and laws, for the prevention of black magic and other such practices," Mehta told the bench, which also comprised Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.

Responding to Mehta's submission, Justice Amanullah said the statement is too simplistic, as the court has the right and the jurisdiction to hold whether something is superstitious. "What will follow is for the legislature to deal with. But, in court, you cannot say that whatever the legislature decides is the last word. That cannot be," he said.

Mehta said a secular court cannot decide that a religious practice is mere superstition, because the court may not possess such scholarly competence. "Your Lordships are experts in the field of law, not religion," he said

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority verdict, had lifted the ban that prevented women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala, and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

Later, on November 14, 2019, another five-judge bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a majority of 3:2, referred the issue of discrimination against women at various places of worship to a larger bench.

The bench had then framed broad issues on freedom across religions, saying they cannot be decided without any facts of the particular case.

(With PTI inputs)