A nine-judge Supreme Court bench stated on Wednesday that courts cannot hollow out religion in the name of reform and logic may not be the right tool to examine faith and belief systems. The remarks came on the second day of hearing a reference from the 2018 Sabarimala judgment. The Centre disagreed on courts deciding religious practices as superstition.
On April 8, 2026, a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant continued hearing constitutional questions arising from petitions seeking review of the September 28, 2018, Sabarimala judgment, which struck down age restrictions on women's entry to the Kerala shrine.
The bench remarked that courts cannot hollow out religion in the name of reform, and logic may not be the right tool to examine faith and belief systems. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “We understand the purpose of the legislature under Article 25(2)(b), but that doesn’t take away the residual jurisdiction of the court in an appropriate case.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, countered, “A secular court can’t decide a religious practice as mere superstition because you don’t have scholarly competence. My lords are scholars in the field of law, not in the field of religion.”
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah stated the court has jurisdiction in judicial review to identify superstition. Mehta argued it falls under the legislature's power via Article 25(2)(b). Justice B V Nagarathna questioned the locus standi of petitioners, noting, “The original writ petitioners... are not devotees. No devotee has challenged this.”
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising represented the Indian Young Lawyers Association. The Chief Justice said the hearing would continue, with proceedings set to resume on Thursday. The bench also includes Justices M M Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, and R Mahadevan.
