Bhubaneswar: The nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday sharpened its scrutiny of what qualifies as a protected religious practice, raising critical questions on whether exclusionary customs can claim constitutional immunity.

During Day 14 of the Sabarimala reference hearing, the Bench—led by Chief Justice Surya Kant—engaged in a pointed exchange with senior counsel Gupta over the scope of religious freedom under the Constitution.

Bench Questions Exclusion in the Name of Religion

A key moment came when the Court drew a clear line between faith and discriminatory practices. Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that religious practice cannot extend to exclusion based on caste, remarking that such exclusion would not qualify as a legitimate religious practice.

The observation came during arguments examining whether customs rooted in tradition can override constitutional guarantees of equality.

‘Test of Constitutionality’ Takes Centre Stage

Senior advocate Darius Khambata, advancing submissions, argued that religion must ultimately pass the test of constitutional morality, questioning practices that may appear discriminatory in a modern constitutional framework.

He illustrated inconsistencies in personal laws and religious practices, pointing out gender-based disparities that persist despite evolving constitutional values.

Court Flags Tension Between Faith and Fundamental Rights

The Bench’s line of questioning reflected a broader concern:

Can deeply held religious beliefs be insulated from judicial review if they conflict with fundamental rights?

The judges indicated that while faith commands respect, constitutional courts cannot ignore practices that undermine equality or dignity.

Sharp Remarks on PIL Culture

In a parallel development, the Court also took note of the nature of public interest litigations (PILs), cautioning against their misuse. The Bench remarked that PILs are increasingly being used for publicity or personal interest rather than genuine public causes, signaling concern over the credibility of such petitions in sensitive religious matters.

Why Day 14 Matters

Day 14 arguments marked a decisive shift from abstract theological debates to hard constitutional questions:

What is the limit of “essential religious practice”?

·        Can exclusion—on caste or gender lines—ever be protected?

·        Should courts defer to faith, or enforce constitutional morality?

The answers to these questions are expected to shape not just the future of the Sabarimala Temple case, but the broader relationship between religion and fundamental rights in India.