Sabarimala case: Centre asks SC if courts can determine what is essential religious practice

The Union government on Tuesday questioned whether courts are the appropriate forum to decide what constitutes an essential religious practice, Bar and Bench reported.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, made the contention before a nine-judge bench hearing a case involving constitutional questions related to the entry of women into Kerala’s Sabarimala temple and discrimination at other religious places.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had, by a 4:1 majority, lifted a ban on women of menstruating age from entering the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala.

However, in November 2019, another five-judge bench, in response to review petitions against the verdict, referred a set of broader legal questions about the freedom of religion to a nine-judge bench.

On Tuesday, Mehta contended that the 2018 judgement needed to be reconsidered and reversed, Live Law reported. He also said that he strongly objected to the view expressed in the ruling that the bar on women’s entry amounted to untouchability.

Mehta argued that the bar on women’s entry was based on age, and contended that the restriction was because of the unique nature of the deity, Live Law reported.

The solicitor general said that western notions of patriarchy should not be blindly applied to India, without taking the country’s civilisational values into account.

However, Justice BV Nagarathna verbally observed that if social evils are branded as religious...

Read more