Supreme Court Says It Can Examine ‘Superstitious’ Religious Practices in Sabarimala Case Hearing

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday observed that it has the authority to examine whether a religious practice can be considered superstitious, during ongoing hearings in the Sabarimala case.

A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is currently hearing petitions related to women’s entry into religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple, and the broader scope of religious freedom across faiths.

Centre Questions Court’s Role in Religious Matters

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that courts should not determine what constitutes superstition in religion.

“Even assuming that there is a superstitious practice, it is not for the court to determine that it is superstition,” he said. He added that under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, it is the legislature that should step in to enact reforms.

Mehta further stated, “Your Lordships are experts in the field of law, not religion,” emphasising that a secular court may lack the expertise to judge religious practices.

Court Pushes Back on ‘Simplistic’ Argument

Responding to the Centre’s stand, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said the argument was “too simplistic” and stressed that the judiciary has the power to examine such issues.

“The court has the right and jurisdiction to hold whether something is superstitious. What follows is for the legislature to deal with,” he observed.

Debate on Religious Freedom and Diversity

The bench also discussed India’s diversity in religious practices. Mehta argued that what may be considered a religious practice in one region could be viewed differently elsewhere.

“Something religious for Nagaland may be a superstition for me,” he said, highlighting variations across communities.

Witchcraft Hypothetical Raises Key Questions

Justice Joymalya Bagchi posed a hypothetical scenario, asking whether practices like witchcraft, if claimed as religious, could still be treated as superstition.

He questioned whether the court could intervene under Article 32 if such practices affect health, morality, or public order, especially if the legislature remains inactive.

In response, Mehta said judicial review could be exercised on grounds of public order, health, and morality, rather than labelling a practice as superstition.

Background of the Sabarimala Case

The issue stems from the landmark 2018 judgment where the Supreme Court allowed entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple, declaring the earlier restriction unconstitutional.

In 2019, a larger bench referred broader questions on religious freedom and gender equality to a nine-judge bench, leading to the current hearings that could redefine the balance between faith and constitutional rights.

What Lies Ahead

The ongoing proceedings are expected to have far-reaching implications on how courts interpret religious practices, essential traditions, and constitutional protections in India.

What did the Supreme Court say in the Sabarimala case?

The court said it has the authority to examine whether a religious practice can be considered superstitious.

What is the Centre’s argument?

The Centre argued that only the legislature, not the court, should decide whether a practice is superstition.

Can courts decide religious practices?

The Supreme Court indicated that it can examine such practices, especially if they impact constitutional rights.

Why is the Sabarimala case important?

It deals with gender equality, religious freedom, and the limits of judicial intervention in faith-based practices.