The Supreme Court of India gave its 2018 judgment on Sabarimala Temple mainly on constitutional grounds—not to challenge faith itself, but to test whether the practice violated fundamental rights.
Here are the core reasons behind the ruling:
⸻
1. Equality before law (Article 14)
The Court held that excluding women based on age (10–50) is a form of discrimination.
• The Constitution guarantees equal access to public religious institutions.
• A biological factor like menstruation was seen as an unjust basis for exclusion.
⸻
2. Non-discrimination (Article 15)
Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.
• The Court said the restriction effectively treated women as impure or lesser, which is not acceptable under constitutional morality.
⸻
3. Freedom of religion for women (Article 25)
Women devotees also have the right to practice their faith.
• Denying entry means denying their individual religious freedom.
• The Court emphasized that devotion is personal, not controlled by gender.
⸻
4. “Essential religious practice” test
A key legal question was: Is this restriction essential to the religion?
• The Court found that:
• The ban was not an essential practice of Hinduism as a whole.
• The temple’s custom could not override constitutional rights.
⸻
5. Constitutional morality over social tradition
The judges stressed that traditions must align with constitutional values.
• Even long-standing customs can be struck down if they:
• Violate dignity
• Enforce exclusion
⸻
6. Minority judgment (important nuance)
One judge, Indu Malhotra, dissented:
• She argued courts should not interfere in deep religious matters unless clearly harmful.
• According to her, this was an issue of faith, not equality law.
(Common sense dictates what? govt? )
1. The Court’s power applies to all religions
The Supreme Court of India can review practices in any religion if they are challenged as violating fundamental rights (equality, dignity, freedom, etc.). This comes from the Constitution itself.
⸻
2. It has intervened in multiple religions
A few well-known examples:
• Islam: The Court struck down instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) in the Shayara Bano v. Union of India case, calling it unconstitutional.
• Hindu practices: Apart from Sabarimala Temple, courts have earlier intervened in temple entry restrictions (like caste-based exclusion).
• Christian institutions: Courts have dealt with issues like church administration, property disputes, and rights of members.
• Parsi community: In cases like Goolrokh Gupta case, questions of who can enter fire temples have reached courts.
So intervention is not limited to Hinduism—it depends on whether someone brings a case and whether rights are affected.
⸻
3. Why “minority discrimination” is often mentioned
India’s Constitution gives additional protections to minorities (Articles 29–30), mainly to preserve culture and education.
• That doesn’t mean minorities are “above the law.”
• It just means courts sometimes balance two things:
• Religious freedom
• Individual rights (like equality)
⸻
4. Why Hindu institutions appear more often in such cases
This is more about legal structure and access, not bias:
• Many Hindu temples are public institutions governed or regulated by the state.
• That makes them more open to constitutional scrutiny.
• Some other religious institutions are structured differently, so cases arise differently.
⸻
5. Bottom line
• The Court can and does rule on all religions.
• The key test is: Does a practice violate fundamental rights?
• Outcomes vary because each case has different facts, traditions, and legal arguments.
⸻
It’s okay to question decisions—that’s part of a healthy democracy. But reducing it to “one religion vs another” misses how the legal system actually works.
If you want, I can break down how the Court decides whether something is an “essential religious practice”—that’s the real core of these cases. (Courtesy – Gemini)