In the backdrop of the Sabarimala case, the nine-judge Bench would also take up the broader question of how far constitutional courts could get involved in key matters of faith. File picture of devotees at the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple. | Photo credit: Leju Kamal
The Union government told the Supreme Court that a straitjacket definition of what constitutes a “religious creed” or which religious practices are “fundamental” would “compress” the inherently pluralistic nature of Hinduism expressed through various sects, groups, spiritual lineages, regional traditions, beliefs, practices, rituals, customs and beliefs.
The Center made its stand clear ahead of the first hearing of a series of writ and review petitions linked to the Sabarimala temple case, which is to be heard by a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant from April 7. In the backdrop of the Sabarimala case, the nine-judge bench would also take up the larger question of how far constitutional courts could get involved in key matters of faith.
Also Read: Kerala Govt Softens Sabarimala Stand, Seeks Supreme Court Decision After Opinions From Scientists, Reformers
The Union government’s written submissions, represented by Advocate General Tushar Mehta, contradicted the Supreme Court’s September 2018 judgment which held that devotees who visit the Sabarimala temple in Kerala are not a separate religious denomination called “Ayyappans” protected by Article 26 of the Constitution.
The five-judge bench rejected the view that banning women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the temple was an “ancient custom” of a religion that amounted to a “fundamental religious practice” protected by Article 25.
A 2018 judgment by a five-judge majority bench concluded that there was “no identified group called ‘Ayyappans'”. Any Hindu devotee could visit the Sabarimala temple. There were no exclusively identified followers or religious principles typical of any cult.
The majority verdict in the Sabarimala case concluded that the exclusion of menstruating women from the Sabarimala temple was tantamount to treating them as children of a “lesser God”. It was said that exclusion of any kind, especially on the basis of a biological characteristic, was tantamount to the practice of untouchability, an abolished social evil. In addition, the court reasoned that women had entered other Ayyappa temples and declared the Sabarimala temple a public religious endowment.
The Center said the restrictive approach of the 2018 judgment attacked intra-religious diversity. Matters of faith, belief, doctrine, practice, observance, symbolism and ways of spiritual life vary from community to community, however small.
“This is more pronounced in the context of Hinduism, which does not rest on a single founder or text or scripture or ecclesiastical authority or creed or mandatory set of practices. Hinduism by its very nature encompasses a wide plurality of traditions, schools of thought, customs, rituals, philosophies and forms of worship and worship… Any attempt to narrow or narrow Hinduism would be constitutionally dangerous,” Mr Mehta said.
Drawing inflexible rules to define religious denominations and establish basic religious practices would lead to confusing results, especially in religions such as Hinduism that lack any mandatory written codes or canonical texts.
“It would be very difficult for denominations, sects and religions without canonical texts that are open to change to demonstrate that any aspects of their beliefs, practices or culture are essential,” the center said.
Published – 07 Apr 2026 10:04 IST
