SABARIMALA REVIEW PETITION – IS THE COURT FACING A CRISIS OF FAITH OR LAW?

This article is written by Tanusri Santra, B.A. LL.B., 2^nd Year, Department of Law, Calcutta University, during her internship at LeDroit India.

KEYWORDS

Sabarimala Temple, Freedom of religion, Gender equality, Supreme Court, Fundamental Rights, Constitutional Morality.

ABSTRACT

The Sabarimala Temple dispute is a complicated legal and social controversy involving issues of freedom of religion, gender equality and constitutional law in India. With the 2018 Supreme Court judgment permitting women of all age groups to enter the temple, and the subsequent review petitions, India is at a crossroads of establishing whether Constitutional morality trumps orthodoxy grounded in faith. It now tests the strength of the judiciary to protect fundamental rights and at the same time not hurt religious sentiments. This paper scrutinizes the changing legal backdrop of the Sabarimala controversy traversing from its inception, significant judicial interventions, and debates in the review petition invoking a pertinent question – Is the bar encountering a extremity of faith or extremity of law?

INTRODUCTION

Located in the Western Ghats of the southern state of Kerala, the Sabarimala tabernacle is one of the holiest Hindu sanctuaries and is devoted to Lord Ayyappa, considered in Brahminical traditions to be engaged in continual continence. Females aged between 10 and 50 years – essentially women of menstruating age – were traditionally not allowed to enter the temple, an age-old tradition hailed by the devout as the necessity of conserving the saintship of the virgin form of the deity. Yet this age-old practice became the subject of a national constitutional debate when a public interest litigation challenged its legality.

Embedded in this dispute is a clash between beliefs and constitutional principles. The ban on women in Sabarimala is an insult to the dignity of women and the state is duty-bound to protect the dignity of women as per 14 ( Right to Equality), 15( Prohibition of Demarcation), and 25( Freedom of Religion). In the resulting court battle, pressing questions arose: Does the essential religious practice doctrine legitimate gender discrimination? If it does, whether constitutional morality that is in vogue overrides centuries-old religious customs? 

This isn’t just a fight over who can go into a temple; it’s also a test case for Indian secularism, women’s rights, and the limits of the courts’ power to get involved in religious matters. As review petitions keep attacking the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision, people in the country are asking, “Is this a crisis of faith or a crisis of law?”

THE 2018 LANDMARK: A VICTORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY

1. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala 2018 removed a ban on women aged between ten and fifty from entering the Sabarimala temple.
2. The Court determined that was a violation of the:

1. Article 14 – Right to Equality
2. Article 15 – Non-Discrimination
3. Article 25 – Right to freedom of religion 1
4. Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity

3. The judgment was a historic assertion of constitutional morality over culture and religion.
4. It further endorsed the principle that traditional practices that violate basic rights must give way to constitutional values.
5. The exclusion of women was considered untouchability under Article 17 by Justice Nariman.
6. Justice Chandrachud rejected the conception of “ natural determinism ” and upheld fleshly autonomy as a natural aspect of quality.
7. The Court ruled that while protecting the core of essential religious practices, they should not be allowed to deprive someone of their fundamental rights.
8. And it stressed that religion cannot be an excuse for patriarchy or oppression.
9. And the decision cracked open the door to a broader reading of religious freedoms.
10. It showed that constitutional values must prevail in a democratic society, and where the values of the Constitution are concerned, the identity of a person is irrelevant.

REVIEW PETITIONS: A MATTER OF LAW OR A MOMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFLECTION?

After the judgment, 64 review petitions were submitted under Article 137 of the Constitution, most of them by religious organizations and individuals claiming that the decision offended religious feelings.

In Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, the Supreme Court, by a majority of 3:2, did not grant a stay on the 2018 judgment and referred the matter to a larger 9-judge bench to adjudicate upon:

• The test of judicial review in religious questions.
• What do “essential religious practices” mean?
• Whether a direction can be claimed under Article 25 from other persons under Article 14.

This change signalled the Court’s effort to negotiate a jurisprudential gateway, attempting to reconcile constitutional mandates with cultural pluralism.

THE ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES TEST: A LEGAL LABYRINTH

1. The Supreme Court developed the Essential Religious Practices test through the Shirur Mutt case of 1954 to establish which religious practices receive constitutional protection under Article 25.
2. The test states that religious practices which are fundamental to a religion receive protection, but the State can regulate or eliminate practices which are not fundamental.
3. The test has caused courts to exceed their authority because they determine which religious practices qualify as essential, thus entering theological territory.
4. The implementation of the ERP test has drawn criticism because its results lack consistency and its standards remain unclear in judicial decisions.
5. The test in the 2018 Sabarimala case evaluated whether the Ayyappa faith required women to be restricted from entering the temple.
6. The test enables the State to intervene in religious matters according to its critics who point out this threat exists mainly for minority religions and less-documented traditions.

7. The test creates a problem regarding religious practice definitions because it remains unclear whether courts or religious leaders or practitioners hold this authority.
8. The current pending Sabarimala review together with other similar cases point toward a possible shift in the ERP test assessment.
9. The ERP stands as a poly-faceted legal construction and is a controversial debate issue which has difficulties in reconciling the constitutional command with religious freedom reservations..

RELIGIOUS AUTONOMY A COLLISION COURSE

India’s constitutional debates centre on a fundamental conflict between gender equality and religious autonomy. The Indian Constitution provides Article 25 to allow religious freedoms, yet these rights face restrictions from public order as well as Part III provisions which include Article 14  ( equivalency before law) and Composition 15(non-discrimination on grounds of gender).

The judiciary has faced situations when religiously justified practices create gender-based discrimination in cases such as **Sabarimala** and **triple talaq**. Judicial intervention against traditional customs becomes essential for gender justice yet this practice generates accusations of religious interference from faith-based communities.

The conflict demonstrates an essential problem which emerges when individual rights attempt to coexist with religious group identities in diverse societies. The achievement of equality must not be weakened by traditions that maintain social exclusion or oppressive practices.

ILLUSTRATION FROM OTHER FAITH-BASED CASES

• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Background The plea was filed by a Muslim woman in 2016, questioning the constitutional validity of the practices of ‘triple talaq’, ‘nikah halala’ and ‘polygamy’.
• The Supreme Court ordered that the tradition of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) among the Muslims will be considered as “void, illegal and unconstitutional. It dictated that personal laws could not challenge constitutional pledges of equality and dignity, and established a precedent, whereby gender justice preceded over religion.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – The Sabarimala Case:

The practice of disallowing women in the Sabarimala temple was held to be unconstitutional as it was against Articles 21 and 14.

• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018):

In this instance, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC (adultery law) as unconstitutional. The decision signaled a departure from paternalistic morality towards personal freedom and gender neutrality in personal life.

• Haji Ali Dargah Case (2016):

And when women were not allowed access to the dargah’s inner shrine, the Bombay High Court gave them the verdict. Even the trust eventually accepted the ruling, demonstrating that faith and reform are not mutually exclusive.

These cases are a reminder that faith doesn’t have to be at odds with equality, and when it is, the Constitution guides us to what is right.

PUBLIC SENTIMENT AND POLITICAL UNDERTONES

The aftermath of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment saw a watershed of public emotion and political polarisation. Massive protests followed in Kerala even after the Supreme Court issued a ruling permitting women to enter the shrine, with thousands of devotees, including women, protesting the same. For many, not just a legal ruling but an attack on religious faith and tradition. An unprecedented head of security measures took place in the temple where women were stopped, threatened and at times turned away violently.

This public resistance was an indication of the breach of trust that existed between the judiciary and the religious communities, and it questioned the claim that legal reforms could and should supersede the shared conscience of religious believers. Political parties from across the spectrum, meanwhile, took advantage of the moment — some endorsing the verdict in the name of progressivism, others exploiting the unrest for conservative voters. The see-sawing of the state government’s response — from trying to enforce to seeking a review — revealed its political tightrope walk.

In the end, the Sabarimala question illustrates how law and popular sentiment often go different ways. A perfectly valid constitutional judgment on the basis of principle, is in danger of losing legitimacy, if it is out of tune with the social practices, clouding the aspect of enforceability, over such deeply religious matters.

FAITH, OR LAW, IN CRISIS?

Underneath the Sabarimala dispute lies a larger question: Is the judiciary faced with a crisis of faith or of legal principle?

Crisis of Faith

• To many believers, questions of faith or worship are beyond the court’s authority — steeped in spiritual conviction and divine command, beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
• The judgment was interpreted by one segment of the Hindu society as an encroachment on their religious freedom and alienating and marginalising.
• Religious groups increasingly fear that their belief systems are being re-engineered by external, secular powers ignorant of their rituals and customs.

Crisis of law 

• The Court finds itself traversing an indistinct landscape—notwithstanding its intrinsically theological character, it is delineating what represents an “important religious practice.”
• Allegations about judicial excess have materialized. The allegations intimate courts are proceeding into spaces typically left for communities as well as religious bodies.
• Since the statute endeavors to compel equivalence, it can unintentionally overlook heterogeneity as conformity gets levied upon varied customs.
• This review petition thus evinces a philosophical schism: Does the Constitution reshape religion, or does religion mold understandings of mutable constitutional rights within a diverse society?

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 9-JUDGE BENCH HEARING

• In 2020, the Supreme Court directed the Sabarimala matter toward a 9-judge Constitution Bench since it broadened the issue beyond women’s temple entry.
• Scrutinizing the parameters for juridical consideration of devout affairs is the tribunal’s objective, notably pinpointing requisite religious observances (ERP).
• We must contemplate if singular inalienable entitlements (Articles 14, 15) can supersede collective religious entitlements (Articles 25, 26). Can personal entitlements overcome religious freedoms?
• That it can elucidate if the customs of a congregation might experience adversities originating externally shall likewise be observed.

CONCLUSION 

The Sabarimala Review Petition has become a constitutional puzzle that asks whether faith should give way to the law or the law should respect faith. It shows that there is a problem not only with the law but also with India’s secular fabric, where gender equality, religious freedom, and constitutional morality clash on sacred ground.

The courts are not just deciding who can enter; they are also changing the way religion works in a constitutional democracy. The Court must be careful not to set a precedent for legal interference in pluralistic traditions by repeatedly stressing constitutional morality, fundamental rights, and important religious practices.

The ongoing legal proceedings leave us to wish for a constitutional ruling that avoids causing discomfort among religious believers. 

The Sabarimala case stands as an unparalleled example demonstrating India’s constitutional evolution which tests secular boundaries alongside equality definitions while examining belief limitations. The judicial system experiences a profound imbalance manifesting as either a faith crisis or legal turmoil.

REFERENCES

• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) 10 SCC 689https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163639357/
• Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, (2020) 2 SCC 1https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190925508/
• The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1219981/
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115701246/
• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1024783/
• Indu Malhotra’s Dissenting Opinion (Sabarimala 2018)

• Supreme Court to decide essential religious practice doctrinehttps://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-refers-sabarimala-verdict-to-larger-bench/article29944971.ece