India's Supreme Court indicated on Wednesday that uniform guidelines on judicial intervention in faith and rights disputes are neither feasible nor desirable, preferring case-by-case assessments. The observation came during the seventh day of hearings on the Sabarimala Temple entry reference.
In New Delhi, a nine-judge bench of India's Supreme Court heard review petitions arising from the 2018 judgment on women's entry to the Sabarimala Temple. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale, and Joymalya Bagchi, emphasized contextual adjudication.
Chief Justice Kant observed, “It is very difficult for us to lay down any future guidance…it will always depend on case to case as to whether the reforms fall within Article 25(2)(b) or, in the name of reforms, amount to an infringement of a religious practice.”
Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium argued on balancing Articles 25 and 26. Justice Nagarathna posed a hypothetical on allowing women of all ages into Sabarimala as reform. Justice Bagchi described Article 25(2)(b) as a “narrow window” for intervention.
The bench discussed the “essential religious practices” (ERP) doctrine, with Subramanium urging evidence-based scrutiny. Hearings continue on Thursday.
Separately, the court questioned the maintainability of a petition challenging excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community, with Justice Nagarathna noting concerns over finality of judgments.
