Bhubaneswar: In a significant observation on May 7, 2026, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India cautioned that if courts were to "readily entertain" every challenge to religious practices, the very fabric of religions and the Indian civilizational identity could unravel. 

​The Context: A High-Stakes Constitutional Review

​The remarks were made during the ongoing hearing of the Sabarimala reference case (officially titled Kantaru Rejeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association). This nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is tasked with defining the boundaries of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. 

​The case has expanded beyond its original scope of women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple to include:

·        ​The right of Muslim women to enter mosques. 

·        ​The religious rights of Parsi women married outside the community. 

·        ​The practice of excommunication within the Dawoodi Bohra community. 

​Key Judicial Observations

​The bench expressed deep concern over the "floodgates" that might open if the judiciary begins adjudicating every internal ritual or belief system. 

​"Religion and Civilization are Intimate": Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted the unique nature of Indian society, where religion is deeply woven into daily life. She asked, "If everybody starts questioning certain religious practices... before a constitutional court, then what happens to this civilization?" 

​The Threat of Fragmentation: Justice M.M. Sundresh warned of a total breakdown if every individual grievance against a ritual were granted judicial review. He stated bluntly, "Every religion will break and every constitutional court will have to be closed" if the court begins questioning every ritual—from the opening and closing times of temples to specific denominational traditions. 

​The Limits of Reform: While the court acknowledged the state’s power to enact social reform (under Article 25(2)(b)), the bench cautioned that "reform" should not become a "cloak" to "hollow out" or "annihilate" religions.

The Conflict: Constitutional Morality vs. Religious Autonomy

​The arguments brought to light a fundamental tension in Indian law:

​The Reformist View: Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that India is a civilization governed by a Constitution. He maintained that any practice—even if religious—that violates fundamental rights or results in "civil death" (such as excommunication) must be subject to judicial scrutiny. 

​The Judicial Concern: The Bench countered that if the court substitutes its own "theological opinion" for that of the believers, it risks creating chaos where "everyone will question everything," potentially leading to regressive outcomes. 

​Why This Matters

​This case will eventually result in a landmark judgment determining the "Essential Religious Practice" (ERP) test. This test helps courts decide which practices are core to a faith (and thus protected) and which are superstitious or secular additions that can be legally reformed.

​The Supreme Court’s recent hesitance suggests a shift toward a more cautious, "case-by-case" approach, prioritizing the preservation of religious identity unless there is a clear, egregious violation of human dignity.

​Members of the 9-Judge Bench:

​CJI Surya Kant 

​Justice B.V. Nagarathna 

​Justice M.M. Sundresh

​Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah 

​Justice Aravind Kumar 

​Justice Augustine George Masih 

​Justice Prasanna B. Varale 

​Justice R. Mahadevan 

​Justice Joymalya Bagchi