Today, two days before Kerala goes to vote for a new government, a Supreme Court 9-judge constitution bench representing diverse faiths, along with a female judge, begins hearing the Sabarimala Temple entry case once again.
The top court must decide whether to uphold its 2018 judgment - which declared exclusion of women of menstruating age (10-50 yrs) from the temple unconstitutional, or to defer to religious autonomy under the Essential Religious Practices test, used to determine if a specific ritual or act is integral to a religion and protected under Articles 25 and 26.
Also Read: PM Modi silent on Sabarimala issue, doesn't care about religion, claims Rahul Gandhi
This judicial return is crucial for the ruling LDF in Kerala, whose U-turn to 'honour customs' seeks to pacify a sensitive electorate, even as it risks erasing its reformist streak.
The 2018 verdict triggered debate, opening doors to similar challenges involving women's access to mosques, entry of Parsi women married outside the community into agiyaris, and questions surrounding the Dawoodi Bohra practice of khatna (female genital mutilation). So, this referral will do more than decide the fate of a single temple. It will recalibrate the delicate balance between individual equality and religious freedom.
Religious autonomy has never been absolute. Abolition of sati in 1829 established a non-negotiable precedent that human dignity and right to life occupy a higher berth than any customary ritual. In a constitutional democracy, the unit of measurement must be the individual, not the denomination.
Also Read: Mandala season: Over 30 lakh devotees visit Sabarimala, revenue stands at Rs 332.77 cr
When a collective rule creates a class of 'lesser' citizens based on biological reality, the Constitution's promise of liberty must prevail. Religious freedom is a shield for the person to practise her faith, not a mandate for an institution to institutionalise exclusion.
The top court must decide whether to uphold its 2018 judgment - which declared exclusion of women of menstruating age (10-50 yrs) from the temple unconstitutional, or to defer to religious autonomy under the Essential Religious Practices test, used to determine if a specific ritual or act is integral to a religion and protected under Articles 25 and 26.
Also Read: PM Modi silent on Sabarimala issue, doesn't care about religion, claims Rahul Gandhi
This judicial return is crucial for the ruling LDF in Kerala, whose U-turn to 'honour customs' seeks to pacify a sensitive electorate, even as it risks erasing its reformist streak.
The 2018 verdict triggered debate, opening doors to similar challenges involving women's access to mosques, entry of Parsi women married outside the community into agiyaris, and questions surrounding the Dawoodi Bohra practice of khatna (female genital mutilation). So, this referral will do more than decide the fate of a single temple. It will recalibrate the delicate balance between individual equality and religious freedom.
Religious autonomy has never been absolute. Abolition of sati in 1829 established a non-negotiable precedent that human dignity and right to life occupy a higher berth than any customary ritual. In a constitutional democracy, the unit of measurement must be the individual, not the denomination.
Also Read: Mandala season: Over 30 lakh devotees visit Sabarimala, revenue stands at Rs 332.77 cr
When a collective rule creates a class of 'lesser' citizens based on biological reality, the Constitution's promise of liberty must prevail. Religious freedom is a shield for the person to practise her faith, not a mandate for an institution to institutionalise exclusion.
