The Supreme Court is set to undertake a landmark hearing from April 7 on issues relating to religious practices and women’s rights. The proceedings will examine several key questions, including the entry of women into religious places.
The matter, which originated from the Sabarimala temple case in Kerala concerning the entry of women of a certain age group, is expected to have implications for other issues such as women offering prayers in mosques and the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Nine-Judge Constitution Bench Constituted
A nine-judge bench has been formed to hear the case, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant. The bench comprises Justice B V Nagarathna, Justice M M Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Origins Of The Dispute: 2018 Sabarimala Verdict
The controversy traces back to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on September 28, 2018, in the Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala case.
At the time, women aged between 10 and 50 were barred from entering the Sabarimala temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The Supreme Court struck down this restriction.
Widespread Protests Against The Verdict
The ruling triggered widespread protests in Kerala. Opponents argued that Lord Ayyappa is considered a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate) and does not meet women of a certain age.
They contended that women devotees who have genuine faith voluntarily refrain from visiting the temple until a certain age, and that those demanding entry lack belief in the deity and view the temple as a tourist site rather than a place of worship.
Review Petitions And Constitutional Concerns
Several review petitions were subsequently filed. Petitioners argued that the Constitution, under Articles 25 and 26, guarantees the right to practise religion according to one’s beliefs, and that the 2018 verdict infringed upon the rights of devotees of Lord Ayyappa.
They also pointed to the 41-day period of strict observance required before undertaking the pilgrimage, arguing that maintaining such discipline may not be feasible for menstruating women and that the practice is rooted in longstanding religious tradition.
Beyond Sabarimala: Broader Implications
The upcoming hearing is not limited to the Sabarimala issue. The court will also examine petitions concerning:
- Women’s entry into mosques for offering prayers
- The restriction on Parsi women married to non-Parsis from entering fire temples (Agyari)
- The practice of FGM in the Dawoodi Bohra community
These matters were tagged together following a Supreme Court order in 2019.
Common Constitutional Questions
In its November 14, 2019 order, the court observed that these cases raise similar constitutional questions. These relate to the interplay between the right to religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 and other fundamental rights.
In essence, the court will examine to what extent the right to practise, profess and propagate religion can limit rights related to equality, liberty and dignity.
Seven Key Questions Before The Bench
The nine-judge bench will deliberate on seven questions framed in November 2019:
- What is the relationship between the right to religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 and other fundamental rights?
- What is the scope of “public order, morality and health” under Article 25(1)?
- What is the scope of the term “morality”, and does it include “constitutional morality”?
- To what extent can courts exercise judicial review in determining ‘Essential Religious Practices’?
- What is the meaning of “sections of Hindus” under Article 25(2)(b)?
- Are essential religious practices protected under Article 26?
- Can a person not belonging to a particular religious denomination challenge its practices through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
Hearing Schedule And Process
As per the court’s earlier order, the hearing will span eight days. Arguments supporting the review petitions will be presented from April 7 to 9, followed by submissions opposing the review from April 14 to 16.
Rejoinder arguments will be heard on April 21, and proceedings will conclude on April 22. On the final day, senior advocate K Parameshwar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, will present his submissions.
