Sabarimala row: Sant Samiti opposes judicial review of religious practices

Ahead of the April 7 hearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench, the Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti has sought to intervene in the Sabarimala temple entry case, asserting that courts should not determine what constitutes “essential religious practices”, as such matters are rooted in faith and held sacred by believers.

The nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant will examine alleged discriminatory practices in other religions to lay down constitutional principles governing such issues.

The other judges on the Bench are: Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Aravind Kumar,

The Samiti, an umbrella body representing 127 sects of Sanatan Dharma, including around 18.5 lakh priests and 12 lakh seers, submitted that courts are not equipped to act as “experts” in religious matters.

“Religion is a matter of faith and religious beliefs are sacred to followers. Thought, faith and belief are internal, while expression and worship are their external manifestations. The phrase ‘equally entitled to’ in Article 25(1) must mean that each devotee is entitled to profess, practise and propagate religion in accordance with its tenets,” it stated.

It further argued that courts should intervene only when a religious practice violates public order, morality or health.

The Samiti also contended that the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 should not override the right to freely profess and practise religion under Article 25.

Supporting the entry restrictions at the Sabarimala shrine, it said certain temples follow specific traditions and purity norms.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has similarly urged the court to refrain from determining “essential religious practices”, cautioning that such scrutiny could encroach upon religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26.

“There are some unforeseen bridges which we may have to cross while hearing the case,” a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had observed on February 16, indicating that proceedings may conclude by April 22.

In a 4:1 verdict on September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by then CJI Dipak Misra allowed entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple, overturning the long-standing restriction on women aged 10 to 50 years.

Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole woman judge on the Bench, delivered a dissenting opinion supporting the traditional practice.

The ruling triggered widespread protests by devotees, particularly after two women entered the shrine, as many believed the tradition should be preserved given the deity’s status as an eternal celibate.

Subsequently, multiple review petitions were filed. On November 14, 2019, the Supreme Court, while not deciding the core issues, referred broader questions relating to religious practices to a larger Bench.

By a 3:2 majority, a Bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi framed seven questions for consideration. These issues will now be examined by a nine-judge Bench.

The Centre has supported the review petitions challenging the 2018 verdict.