NEW DELHI (Wednesday, April 8, 2026) — On the second day of the high-stakes Sabarimala review hearing, the Supreme Court of India asserted its authority to identify and rule against superstitious practices within religions. This observation by the nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, creates a direct judicial challenge to the Central Government’s argument that religious faith remains beyond the scope of secular courts.
The Judicial Observation: Law vs. Superstition
The bench’s remarks came as a rebuttal to the Centre’s claim that judges, as legal experts, lack the theological competence to preside over matters of faith.
- Jurisdiction to Reform: The Court observed that it possesses the right and jurisdiction to hold what constitutes a superstitious practice. It emphasized that while faith is protected, practices that violate constitutional mandates or are grounded in superstition are not immune to judicial review.
- Response to “Non-Expertise”: The bench challenged the notion that a secular court cannot decide religious issues, suggesting that the judiciary’s role is to ensure that religious practices do not override fundamental human rights.
The Centre’s Defense: Religious Autonomy
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Government, mounted a vigorous defense of religious traditions, urging the court to adopt a policy of non-interference.
| Centre’s Argument | Key Points |
| Legislative Domain | The Centre argued that if a practice requires reform due to superstition, it is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary, to step in under Article 25(2)(b). |
| Logic vs. Faith | Mehta contended that the concept of “logic” cannot be applied to religion. He stated that judges’ personal views on whether a belief is “reasonable” are irrelevant if the belief is “genuinely and conscientiously held.” |
| Constitutional Morality | The Solicitor General criticized the concept of “Constitutional Morality,” calling it an “unfortunate concept” that should not be used as a ground for judicial review to override societal or religious morality. |
| Temple as Sui Generis | The government argued that the Sabarimala restriction is unique (sui generis) and tied to the celibate nature of the deity, rather than being a form of discrimination. |
Notable Judicial Remarks
The hearing saw several pointed observations from the bench:
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna: Observed that “Public morality is not static.” She noted that what was considered immoral or obscene in the 1950s is no longer viewed the same way today, highlighting the “struggle of an evolving society.” She also remarked that women cannot be treated as “untouchables” for three days a month.
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi: Stated that while constitutional morality governs secular life, religious rights must be determined based on the understood morality of a society’s religious tenets.
- Justice M.M. Sundresh: Noted that the “concept of logic” cannot be applied to religion, acknowledging the complexity of the debate.
What is at Stake?
The outcome of this nine-judge bench hearing will define the “Essential Religious Practices” (ERP) test for decades to come. It will determine:
- Scope of Judicial Review: To what extent can courts “reform” religions?
- Individual vs. Denominational Rights: Does a woman’s right to equality (Art. 14) trump a religious group’s right to manage its own affairs (Art. 26)?
- Future Cases: The ruling will directly impact pending cases regarding Muslim women’s entry into mosques and the Parsi community’s “Tower of Silence” rituals.
Sources
- The Hindu: “SC hearing on Sabarimala: Concept of logic can’t be applied to religion” (April 8, 2026).
- Business Standard: “Sabarimala case: SC says it can rule on what superstition is, govt opposes” (April 8, 2026).
- LiveLaw: “Sabarimala Reference: Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 2]” (April 8, 2026).
- Economic Times: “Sabarimala case: SC says it can hold what superstition in a religion is” (April 8, 2026).