Sabarimala Case Supreme Court Hearing Highlights: No patriarchy, India places women on higher pedestal, Centre to SC

All updates to this live blog have ended

The Court is examining seven key points to establish a definitive legal framework: the scope of religious freedom under Article 25; how individual rights under Article 25 interact with the rights of religious denominations under Article 26; whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 are subject to other fundamental rights beyond public order, morality, and health; the scope of “morality” in Articles 25 and 26, including the concept of “Constitutional Morality”; the limits of judicial review in identifying “Essential Religious Practices”; the meaning of “Sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b) concerning access to religious institutions; and whether a person outside a specific religious group can challenge its practices through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Justice Masih asked whether the Devaru case distinguished between the right to enter a temple and the right to perform or participate in rituals, to which SG Tushar Mehta replied that the issue had been considered.

Justice Bagchi noted that while Article 25(1) is subject to other fundamental rights, clause (2) is not, and sought clarity on whether a law made under Article 25(2) could still be tested against clause (1). He also pointed out that the Constitution stands on a higher pedestal than statutory law and asked whether this aspect had been examined in Devaru.

Justice Nagarathna highlighted that Article 25(2) has two components — one preserving existing laws, customs and usage, and the other enabling the State to enact laws for regulation. She noted that “existing law” under Articles 366 and 13 includes customs and usage.

Responding, the SG emphasised that what is permitted is the regulation of secular, economic, financial and political activities associated with religious practices.

Justice Sundresh asked whether only laws relating to the secular aspects of temples or religious practices would apply.

In response, SG Tushar Mehta drew a distinction between public and denominational temples, arguing there is a fundamental difference between excluding persons from temples open to the general public and those restricted to a specific section of Hindus.

Referring to the Devaru verdict, the SG raised the question of whether rights under Article 26(b) are subject to Article 25(2)(b), and whether the right to religious practice includes the right to exclude those not considered entitled to enter. He noted that the case relied on ‘agamas’, which permit restricting access in temples meant for particular communities, and highlighted the distinction between public and denominational temples.

SG Tushar Mehta referred to the 1957 Venkataramana Devaru verdict, decided by a five-judge bench, noting that Shirur Mutt and Ratilal were seven-judge bench rulings. He said the Devaru case was possibly the first and only judgment to read Articles 25 and 26 together.

He added that the ruling dealt with the rights of a religious denomination to manage its temple affairs, particularly in the context of the entry of Scheduled Caste persons. He said it also impacts issues raised in the Syedna excommunication case, though he did not go into its details.

SG Tushar Mehta argued that accepting the appellants’ contention would render Article 25(2)(b) ineffective for denominational temples, despite its clear inclusion. He said the apparent conflict must be resolved through harmonious construction, interpreting both provisions in a way that allows each to be given effect.

During the hearing, SG Tushar Mehta questioned why advocates for women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple invoke “patriarchy,” arguing that the concept is not rooted in India’s societal framework.

“India, my Lords, has always not only treated ladies equally, but they have always been treated at a higher pedestal. There are several judgments of the recent past where there is a concept of ‘patriarchal society’ or there is some 'gender stereotypes' etc. They were never there. In Indian society, we worship ladies. The President of India to the Prime Minister of India to the judges of the Supreme Court, we bow down before our ladies deities. So let us not introduce those concepts of ‘patriarchy’ and ‘gender stereotypes'. There has never been (such notions in India),” he told the Court, as reported by Bar and Bench.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that Indian society not only ensures equality for women but also accords them a higher status.

SG Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that not all religious practices can be framed as issues of dignity or personal choice.

“Every denomination practice we have to respect, everything is not related to dignity or bodily freedom,” Mehta said, citing examples from other faiths. “If I go to a mazar or a gurdwara and if I have to cover my head, I can’t say my dignity or right or choice is taken away.”

He argued that the Sabarimala issue is rooted in the nature of the deity itself.

“Sabarimala is about an attribute of a deity — how can it be judicially examined?” Mehta said, questioning the scope of court intervention in such matters.

Arguing for the Centre, SG Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that not all constitutional questions should be viewed through a gender lens, as he defended the contentious matter of ban on the entry of women to Sabarimala.

“In the last decade or so, a jurisprudence has developed where every constitutional provision is sought to be seen through the lens of gender. But all provisions are not so intended,” Mehta said before the Constitution bench.

He argued that there was no discrimination in the case, pointing to constitutional guarantees of equality.

“Article 14 guarantees equality to all. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds including sex. Fundamental rights are available equally,” he said.

Continuing his arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned whether courts have the expertise to determine what constitutes an essential religious practice.

Mehta said identifying essential practices would require a deep examination of religious scriptures and evolving belief systems.

He asked, “How can the court examine essentiality of that?”

Raising concerns over institutional limits, Mehta said, “This court will have to decide several things — the issue is, does the court have the subject matter expertise?”

He pointed to the diversity within religions, with multiple denominations and sub-denominations, and suggested a more structured approach.

“We may need to examine what is the practice and then whether it violates public order, morality and constitutional rights,” he said.

The Centre told the Supreme Court that courts should avoid narrowly interpreting "religious denominations" and "essential religious practices" while examining issues of faith.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that such a limited approach had been adopted in the September 2018 Sabarimala judgment and warranted reconsideration.

Religions should not be treated as monolithic while interpreting constitutional protections on religious freedom, SG Tushar Mehta argued.

“Let’s not take Hinduism, Islam, Christianity as broad categories and decide what is ‘religion’ — there are sects and denominations,” Mehta said before the Constitution bench hearing the Sabarimala case.

He said this was reflected in the Constitution itself.

“That’s why Articles 25 and 26 don’t just say religion but also recognise sections,” Mehta said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, flagged what he called three key gaps in interpreting religious freedom in the 2018 verdict.

The Constitution bench is examining the scope of Articles 25 and 26, which govern freedom of religion.

Mehta said the Centre was “not taking any extreme views” but submitted that the full sweep of these provisions had not been examined even in earlier landmark rulings.

“I submit that three crucial aspects have not been noticed,” he told the court, listing constituent assembly debates, the breadth of religion in India, and its internal diversity.

He stressed that Indian religions are not monolithic.

“The country is having very proud plurality,” Mehta said, noting that Hinduism comprises multiple denominations and Islam, too, has internal differences such as Shia and Sunni traditions.

While clarifying that the court was not examining theological questions, Mehta urged the bench to keep this diversity in mind while interpreting religious practices and rights.

Lawyers started debating whether proceedings in the Sabarimala case should focus on reviewing the 2018 verdict or be limited to answering broader constitutional questions.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising sought clarity from the nine-judge bench, saying the review petitions themselves may not be maintainable. She added that the court should confine itself to the questions referred, noting there was “no mandamus” staying the earlier judgment.

Counsel on both sides debated whether the hearing should examine the review pleas or restrict itself to the legal issues framed earlier.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said the bench had set timelines after consultations with other judges.

During arguments in the Sabarimala review case, the Centre and lawyers appearing for petitioners urged careful consideration. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Constitution bench that the outcome would shape the country’s functioning “for at least 30-40 years.”

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said the court would be re-examining the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Surya Kant responded that the court would ensure it had full clarity before reaching a conclusion.

The Supreme Court expressed strong reservation to grant additional time to petitioners in the Sabarimala review case, stressing adherence to the schedule.

Appearing for the original petitioner, an advocate told the Constitution bench that the case had a “small history” spanning 20 years.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said the court would examine the background but made clear the hearings would proceed as planned.

“We will review the history also,” he said.

The Chief Justice noted that parties were not adhering to the set timelines.

“We will not grant time. There are urgent matters awaiting,” he said, adding that the bench would read all written submissions “minutely” but asked counsel to stick to the schedule.

Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution Bench is taking up pleas seeking review of its 2018 verdict in the Sabarimala case related to entry of women into the temple.

According to the Centre, changing the practice would also infringe upon the religious rights of devotees—both men and women—who have followed established customs for centuries, and could impact the constitutional principle of religious pluralism.

The Union government maintained that the practice does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that it is a matter of religious tradition rather than gender discrimination.

The Centre further argued that permitting entry of women could fundamentally alter the character of worship at the temple, potentially undermining long-standing traditions.