Supreme Court Reviews Sabarimala Verdict: Balancing Essential Religious Practices with Constitutional Dignity
A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court is reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, which allowed women of all ages to enter the temple. The legal debate focuses on the 'essential religious practices' doctrine versus the 'anti-exclusion test' proposed by Justice Chandrachud. While the former allows courts to define religious tenets, the latter prioritizes whether a practice leads to systematic exclusion or impairs individual dignity. The court seeks to harmonize individual rights under Article 25 with the rights of religious denominations under Article 26, ensuring that religious autonomy does not violate the overarching values of a liberal constitution.
Key Points
- The 2018 judgment ruled that excluding women aged 10-50 violated the right to freedom of religion and equality.
- The 'anti-exclusion test' examines if a religious practice is compatible with constitutional guarantees of equal treatment.
- Article 25 protects individual freedom of conscience, while Article 26 protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their affairs.
- The review will impact other religious disputes, including excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Exam Facts
- The original Sabarimala verdict was a 4:1 decision in the Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala case.
- Justice Indu Malhotra was the lone dissenting voice in the original 2018 judgment.
- The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, were central to the initial legal challenge.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.