Supreme Court: Logic not right tool to examine religious belief systems; courts cannot hollow out religion
The Supreme Court, during a hearing on the Sabarimala shrine case, stated that courts cannot hollow out religion in the name of reform and that logic may not be the right tool to examine faith and belief systems. A nine-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed that a religion cannot lose its identity through social reform. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that reform must originate from within the religion and that judicial review should not be based on rationality or science for religious matters. Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned whether a non-devotee could challenge religious practices in court. The court also discussed that the term 'essential religious practices' was a judicial creation, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court emphasized that logic might not be suitable for examining religious belief systems.
- Courts should not undermine religion under the guise of reform, as reform should ideally come from within the religion.
- The concept of 'essential religious practices' is a judicial creation, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned the locus standi of non-devotees to challenge religious practices.
Exam Facts
- Case: Sabarimala shrine case.
- Bench: Nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
- Solicitor-General: Tushar Mehta.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna's observation on non-devotees challenging practices.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.