The oral observations were made during submissions made by senior advocate Darius J. Khambata, appearing for a Parsi woman, Goolrokh Gupta, who was barred from entering the fire temple (Agiari) for marrying a Hindu. | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 5, 2026) made it clear that any practice that excludes people on the basis of caste has nothing to do with religion.
“No caste practice can be termed as religious. Religious practice cannot extend to the exclusion of certain castes. Article 25 of the Constitution recognizes the inalienable freedom of conscience of one and all and enables the State to enact a law to put an end to caste practices in the name of religion,” Justice BV Nagarathna said in the Sabarimala review case.
The oral observations were made during submissions made by senior advocate Darius J. Khambata, appearing for a Parsi woman, Goolrokh Gupta, who was barred from entering the fire temple (Agiari) for marrying a Hindu.
The Supreme Court referred her case to the Constitutional Court, asking whether a Parsi woman can keep her religious identity intact after marrying someone of a different faith under a special marriage law.
The petition was tagged the Sabarimala case and came before a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which heard the review petitions.
Marriage is the basis of discrimination”
“So marriage is the basis of discrimination and only through the lady?” Justice Nagarathna said in response to Mr. Khambat’s submission.
Mr Khambata said the Zoroastrian religion is very forward-looking and there is no restriction in its tenets to prevent women who marry outside the faith from praying in Agiari.
He said such man-made restrictions do not bode well for a faith that is “dying”. Mr Khambata said about 50% of Pari youth, male and female, were intermarried.
Justice Nagarathna said the ban amounted to “excommunication”. Mr Khambata said when Parsi men married they were not shown the door, but women who did the same were ostracized from the community and the faith.
He argued that the “doctrine of concealment,” which holds that a woman loses her identity and legal rights upon marriage, violated his client’s fundamental rights. The doctrine was not recognized by the Constitution of India.
Ms Gupta, when her case was heard in the Supreme Court in 2017, argued that denying her the right to practice her religion simply because she married outside her faith violated her fundamental right to religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. A woman’s identity was not merged with her husband’s at marriage, she submitted.
Ms Gupta initially challenged the Gujarat High Court’s order dated 23 March 2012. The High Court ruled that Goolrokh Adi Contractor ceased to be a Parsi after her marriage to Mahipal Gupta, a Hindu, under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
The Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust, which opposed her entry into Agiari, said the Supreme Court decided the case after going through the affidavits of at least seven Parsi priests who argued that according to religious principles she ceases to be a Zoroastrian after marrying a Hindu and cannot be allowed to offer prayers at a Zoroastrian place of worship.
Published – 06 May 2026 03:05 IST
