During the day-long hearing, the Supreme Court also observed that people do not need to go to the temple to be religious. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Constitution envisages that every religious practice is protected as long as it does not disturb public order, morals and health, the Union government said in the Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 13, 2026).
Appearing before a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in the Sabarimala review hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the protection afforded to religion is not limited to “core religious practices” but is broader in scope.
Mr Mehta, who opened the rejoinder at the constitutional reference hearing, said the burden was on the challenger to show that the religious practice violated public order, morality and health.
“Not just basic procedures”
He further stated that fundamental rights in the Constitution were interpreted expansively by the court in the past. Only Article 25 (right to religion and freedom of conscience) and Article 26 (freedom of religion or any part thereof to manage its own religious affairs) were given restrictive meaning by the court.
“Articles 25 and 26 were the only fundamental rights to which the court gave limited meaning, saying that the rights would be protected only to the extent of ‘core religious practices’,” Mr Mehta said.
He pointed out that the phrase “fundamental religious practices” was missing from the text of the constitution and argued that it was just judicial creativity.
Related rights
Mr. Mehta added that Articles 25 and 26 were interrelated, not isolated, and said that the freedom of conscience of an individual and the right of a religion to manage its own affairs were interrelated. According to him, Article 26 is only an expression of individual right in a collective form.
“Fundamental rights are not islands,” he said.
“Rituals are not needed”
During the day-long hearing, the Supreme Court also observed that people do not need to go to the temple to be religious. A small lamp lit in the hut was an equally moving expression of faith, Chief Justice Kant said.
Justice BV Nagarathna added that Hinduism is a way of life and does not depend on ritualistic practices or frequent visits to temples.
Lawyer and former director of the National Judicial Academy Mohan Gopal said what Justice Nagarathna was referring to was called “autotheism” or individual freedom of conscience to examine one’s own inner conscience.
Published – 13 May 2026 22:42 IST
