‘Religious freedom cannot be curbed in the name of reform’:SC on Sabarimala case says changes must reflect public demand, not coercion

Supreme Court on Monday observed that religious freedom cannot be violated in the name of social reform, while hearing a batch of petitions related to women’s entry into religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple. A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Justice Surya Kant said the framers of the Constitution had carefully created safeguards keeping societal needs in mind, and such arrangements could not be altered casually by a constitutional bench. The matter, which has been under hearing since April 7, entered its 14th day on Monday. Justice BV Nagarathna remarked that religious freedom cannot be abolished in the name of social reform, though reforms backed by public consensus may be considered within constitutional limits. The case will be heard again on Wednesday. Seven key issues under debate During the hearing, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the Government of Kerala, argued that essential religious practices cannot be removed under the pretext of social reform. He said worship at sacred places is an integral aspect of Hinduism, and restricting access to such sites may amount to infringement of religious rights. Justice Nagarathna reiterated that social reform cannot override constitutionally protected religious freedom. Constitution allows scope for reform Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, argued that the Constitution encourages scientific temper and reform, referring to Article 51A(h), which promotes a spirit of inquiry and rational thought. Representing Swami Agnivesh, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy said the Constitution expressly permits reform in religious practices. Referring to Article 26, she argued that the provision uses the term “manage” rather than “control,” indicating a balance between institutional autonomy and individual rights. Bench raises constitutional balance Justice Nagarathna observed that constitutional protections such as Article 30 for minorities were framed after careful consideration of social realities. She questioned whether a nine-judge bench could alter arrangements deliberately made by the Constitution’s framers. In response, Guruswamy said the framers had envisaged reforms in religion and believed such changes would not disturb the broader civilisational balance. Earlier, the Supreme Court had noted that if every religious practice were challenged in court, it could trigger a flood of litigation and affect the structure of religions. Centre’s stand The Sabarimala-related hearings began on April 7. During the proceedings, the Government of India opposed women’s entry into the temple, arguing that several temples dedicated to goddesses also restrict men’s entry, and that long-standing religious traditions should be respected.