Supreme Court Observes Limits on Reforming Religious Practices

Supreme Court Observes Limits on Reforming Religious Practices

Why in the News ?

The Supreme Court of India remarked that courts cannot initiate reforms in matters of faith, during hearings on the Sabarimala case review, raising critical questions on the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights like equality and dignity. This debate parallels discussions in environmental jurisprudence where courts balance development with constitutional principles.

Court’s Observations and Ongoing Debate

  • A nine-judge Bench, led by the Chief Justice, examined issues related to judicial intervention in religious practices.
  • The Court observed that courts cannot act as agents of religious reform, especially in matters deeply rooted in faith and doctrine, avoiding ex post facto judicial interventions.
  • The hearing relates to the review of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, which allowed entry of women aged 10–50.
  • Concerns raised about limits of judicial review over religious customs, similar to debates around retrospective environmental clearances.
  • The Bench emphasised the need to maintain a balance between reform and preservation of religion.
  • Questions were raised whether excessive reforms could interfere with core religious identity.

Arguments on Constitutional Morality vs Religious Freedom

  • Senior advocate Indira Jaising argued that religion must evolve to remain relevant.
  • She emphasised that social reform includes religious reform, especially when practices are discriminatory.
  • Highlighted the importance of Article 14 (Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Dignity) over restrictive practices.
  • Asserted that constitutional morality should guide judicial decisions, not purely religious norms, promoting environmental democracy and participatory governance.
  • Supported the ‘essential religious practices’ doctrine, allowing courts to evaluate what constitutes core religious practice.
  • Warned against “balkanisation of Hinduism” if every sect claims exclusive rights over religious practices.
  • Advocated for harmonisation between fundamental rights and religious freedom (Article 25).

 

Key Constitutional provisions :

●  Article 25: Guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.

●  Article 14: Ensures equality before law and prohibits discrimination.

●  Article 21: Protects life and personal dignity, including the right to a pollution free environment.

●  Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test:

○   Developed by the Supreme Court to determine core vs non-core practices.

○   Only essential practices receive constitutional protection.

●  Constitutional Principles: Courts apply principles like the polluter pays principle and precautionary principle in various constitutional matters, as seen in landmark cases including the Vanashakti judgment.

●  Regulatory Framework: Similar to how EIA notification and Forest Conservation Act govern environmental matters, religious practices are regulated through constitutional provisions.

●  Sabarimala Case (2018):

○   Allowed entry of women into Sabarimala Temple.

○   Recognised gender equality over exclusionary practices.

●  Debate revolves around judicial activism vs judicial restraint in religious matters, avoiding ex-post or post facto approvals.

●  Reflects broader tension between tradition and progressive constitutional values.