The Supreme Court has made an important comment on Wednesday (April 8, 2026) in the ongoing hearing on the entry of women in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. The court has said that it has the right to decide which practice in any religion is based on superstition. It was argued by the Center that judges are experts in law and not in religion, hence it does not come under the jurisdiction of the court to decide on matters related to religion. In response to this the court has said this.
The Center has supported the ban on women’s entry into the temple. A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women in entry into religious places, including the Sabarimala temple, and the scope of religious freedom among different religions. The hearing of the case started on Tuesday and Wednesday is the second day. At the beginning of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, asked how the court would decide whether a practice is based on superstition.
He said, ‘Even if we assume that a practice is based on superstition, it is not the job of the court to decide this. Under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the legislature to make laws for reform. Tushar Mehta said that Parliament or State Assemblies can consider a practice as superstition and make laws against it, such as laws related to stopping black magic. On this, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said that this argument is very simple, because the court has the authority to decide whether a practice is based on superstition or not.
He said, ‘The legislature can decide what steps to take after this, but it cannot be said that whatever the legislature decides will be final.’ After this, Tushar Mehta said that a secular court cannot call any religious practice as superstition, because it does not have expertise in religious matters.
He said, ‘The honorable judge is an expert in law, not in religion.’ Tushar Mehta said that in a diverse society like India, a practice that is religious in one place may be considered superstition in another. During this, Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised the question that if witchcraft is said to be a part of any religion, will it not be considered superstition?
Justice Bagchi questioned that if the legislature is silent on the matter, can’t the court intervene on grounds of public order, morality and health? To this, Tushar Mehta replied that the court can review, but not on the basis of ‘superstition’, but on the basis of ‘health, morality and public order’.
The only woman judge included in the bench is Justice B. V. Nagarathna said that to understand any religious practice, it should be seen from the perspective of the philosophy of that religion. He said, ‘From the perspective of any other religion, it cannot be said that this is not an essential religious practice. The court should decide on the basis of the principles of the same religion, but all this should be subject to health, morality and public order.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench by a 4:1 majority had struck down the ban on women aged between 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala temple, holding it illegal and unconstitutional. Later on 14 November 2019, a second bench of five judges headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had referred the issue of discrimination against women to a larger bench by a majority of 3:2.
Also read:-
Maulana Ishaq Gora: ‘There are a lot of Nikahs in Islam…’, Maulana Ishaq Gora’s big statement on Pakistani culture
