The Supreme Court on Tuesday made significant observations regarding the limits of judicial intervention in religious matters. A nine-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, cautioned constitutional courts against effecting changes in religious practices and customs. The bench asserted that only the will of the people, reflected through their elected representatives in Parliament and state assemblies, could bring about reforms in religious practices.
Court's Reluctance to Intervene in Religious Matters
The bench, which has been hearing a series of petitions involving the delicate balance between faith and fundamental rights, emphasized that constitutional courts should be extremely reluctant to give their views on religious matters. During the 14th day of the debate, the CJI stated, "If the people of the country, through their elected representatives, seek social reform to change certain religious practices, and Parliament or an assembly enacts a law to that effect, the constitutional courts will accept it."
The CJI further explained that if such a law is enacted and people petition constitutional courts alleging that the government is interfering in religion under the guise of social reforms or regulating secular activities associated with religious practices, then courts would examine the validity of such legislation. However, the court made it clear that it is impossible to test all religious practices across thousands of temples and shrines.
Observations on Sabarimala and Essential Religious Practices
These observations came when senior advocate Jaideep Gupta was presenting the stand of the Kerala government. The state government had done a flip-flop on the sanctity of the religious custom of the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, which restricts the entry of women in the 10-50-year age group. CJI Kant noted that it was impossible for constitutional courts to test the validity of a maze of religious practices in thousands of temples and shrines of other faiths, which follow peculiar customs and rituals relating to men and women.
Gupta argued that if the validity of a religious practice is challenged before the Supreme Court or a high court, it becomes imperative for the court to determine whether the practice is an essential religious practice. "In determining the essentiality of a practice to a religion, the court must test it on the touchstone of tenets of the religion concerned and not against judicial or constitutional standards," he said.
Secular Activities vs. Religious Qualifications
When Gupta argued that quashing the practice of hereditary appointment of 'archakas' (priests) was a required social reform, Justices B V Nagarathna and Aravind Kumar observed that the process of appointment of 'archakas' may be a secular activity connected to a religious institution, but the qualifications of 'archakas' were purely religious. The bench, which also includes Justices M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, is likely to conclude the arguments on Wednesday.
