Overview
- The nine-judge bench, which reserved judgment Thursday after 16 days of hearings, asked all sides to file written submissions by May 29.
- The court is weighing seven questions that include the scope of Articles 25 and 26 on religious freedom, how they interact with other rights, what “morality” means in this context, how far judges may review religious practices, the meaning of “sections of Hindus,” and who has standing to challenge a practice.
- The Union government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that all religious practices are presumed protected unless they breach public order, morality or health, that reform belongs primarily to legislatures, and that Sabarimala devotees should be treated as a religious denomination with autonomy.
- Chief Justice Surya Kant said constitutional courts cannot abdicate judicial review when practices injure fundamental liberties, and justices cautioned that majoritarian preferences cannot override constitutional limits.
- The bench and counsel questioned the long‑used ‘essential religious practices’ test, with some calling it elitist, and the ruling will affect access for women across faiths and other disputes beyond Sabarimala, with media reports suggesting a verdict may come in about two months.