Overview
- The nine-judge bench, which sat on Wednesday and Thursday, said courts can identify superstitious practices and strike them down if they breach public order, health or morality.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that judges are not religious experts and that any reform of practices should come from legislatures under Article 25(2)(b), while urging the court to reject the use of “constitutional morality” from past rulings.
- The bench questioned whether non‑devotees can file public interest pleas to challenge Sabarimala customs, noting the original petitioner was a lawyers’ group and pressing for clear limits on who may bring such cases.
- Responding to arguments that denominations can restrict entry, justices cautioned that sect-only access would harm Hinduism and divide society, as they weighed Article 26 denomination rights against the State’s power under Article 25(2)(b).
- The reference sets seven questions on religious freedom, equality and judicial review, and the outcome could shape who may enter temples and other places of worship across faiths as hearings continue.