Supreme Court Reviews 2018 Sabarimala Judgment on Women's Entry to Temple
The Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution Bench has begun reviewing its 2018 judgment that upheld the right of women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala shrine. Justice B.V. Nagarathna stated that courts can intervene if social evils are given a religious color. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued against judicial overreach into religious practices, questioning courts' expertise in determining "essential religious practices" and interpreting religious texts. The review aims to establish a 'judicial policy' for constitutional courts regarding religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court is reviewing its 2018 judgment on women's entry to the Sabarimala temple.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted the judiciary's role in distinguishing social evils from religious practices.
- Arguments focused on the extent of judicial review over "essential religious practices" and the interpretation of religious texts.
- The reference seeks to evolve a 'judicial policy' concerning religious freedom and denominational rights.
Exam Facts
- Case: Review of 2018 Sabarimala judgment.
- Bench: Nine-judge Constitution Bench.
- Key Judges: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
- Constitutional Articles: Article 25 and Article 26.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.