Sabarimala Temple Entry Case: Centre Argues Faith Beyond Judicial Review in Supreme Court

Hindustan Times - India · 8 Apr 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance

The Centre has urged the Supreme Court to uphold restrictions on women's entry into Sabarimala temple, asserting that matters of religious faith and denominational autonomy are beyond judicial review, challenging the 2018 judgment's application of 'constitutional morality'.

Key points

Centre's Argument: The Union government contends that restrictions on women of menstruating age entering Sabarimala temple are rooted in religious practice and denominational autonomy, not gender discrimination.

Judicial Review Limits: The Centre argues that courts lack the authority to assess religious practices based on 'rationality' or 'modernity', as this would substitute judicial views for theological understanding.

Essential Religious Practices: The government asserts that the essentiality of a religious practice must be determined by the denomination itself, not courts, unless it violates public order, health, or fundamental rights.

Deity's Attributes: The Centre claims the attributes of a deity, like Lord Ayyappan's celibacy at Sabarimala, are not subject to judicial review, as courts cannot reinterpret theological character.

Critique of Constitutional Morality: The government criticizes the 2018 judgment's reliance on 'constitutional morality', calling it a vague and judicially evolved concept without clear constitutional basis.

[GS2-Polity] This case revisits the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, testing the balance between religious freedoms and gender equality under judicial scrutiny.

[GS1-Society] The Sabarimala issue reflects broader societal tensions between traditional religious practices and modern egalitarian values, a recurring theme in Indian polity.

Nine-Judge Bench: The Supreme Court has constituted a nine-judge bench, including CJI Surya Kant, to address seven constitutional questions, indicating the case's far-reaching implications for religion-rights conflicts.

Way Forward: India needs a clearer legal framework distinguishing justiciable religious practices from theological doctrines, possibly through legislative guidelines or a constitutional amendment to define the limits of judicial review in religious matters.

Key terms

Essential Religious Practices Doctrine

A judicial principle determining which religious practices are protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. Courts examine whether a practice is essential to a religion's tenets, but this doctrine faces criticism for judicial overreach into theological matters.

Constitutional Morality

A concept developed by courts referring to the spirit of constitutional values like equality and dignity. The Centre argues it lacks textual basis in the Constitution and introduces subjectivity in adjudicating religious practices.

Articles 25 and 26

Fundamental rights guaranteeing freedom of religion (Article 25) and rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs (Article 26). Their interpretation is central to the Sabarimala case, testing limits between religious autonomy and constitutional rights.

Denominational Autonomy

The right of religious groups to self-governance in matters of doctrine, practice, and internal organization. The Centre's argument emphasizes this autonomy as paramount unless practices violate specific constitutional limitations.