‘Difficult to declare faith of millions wrong’: Supreme Court observes in Sabarimala hearing
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would be difficult for courts to declare the faith of millions as “wrong”, as it continued hearing the Sabarimala reference case.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant made the observation on the fourth day of proceedings, while examining key questions on the scope of judicial review in matters of religious practice.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, argued that courts should adopt a higher threshold when entertaining public interest litigations (PILs) challenging religious customs.
He submitted that PILs filed by persons not belonging to a particular faith should be scrutinised carefully, especially when they seek to question long-standing practices at temples such as Sabarimala and Guruvayur.
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi posed a hypothetical scenario, asking whether courts could intervene if a religious leader advocated mass suicide as a path to salvation. Singhvi termed it an “extreme case” warranting intervention, but maintained that the general rule should be judicial restraint. The Chief Justice added that in exceptional circumstances, the court could act suo motu.
Singhvi clarified that he was not seeking a blanket bar on PILs, but argued that petitions concerning religious practices must meet a significantly higher threshold than others. Courts, he said, should refrain from adjudicating such issues without hearing the affected believers.
Justice B V Nagarathna observed that PILs filed by “interlopers” could be dismissed if those directly affected had not approached the court. Justice M M Sundresh also questioned whether courts could decide such matters without hearing the millions who follow the faith.
“The most difficult task is to declare that the belief of millions is wrong or erroneous,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Singhvi further argued that the Sabarimala issue could not be decided in abstract constitutional terms without considering the unique religious character of the deity. He said Lord Ayyappa is worshipped at Sabarimala as a ‘Naisthika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate), and that the temple’s customs, including the 41-day ‘vratam’, are intrinsically linked to this belief.
Responding to concerns of gender discrimination, Singhvi contended that the practice does not amount to a complete exclusion of women, noting that those below 10 and above 50 years are permitted entry. He argued that the restriction is based on age classification rather than gender, and is intended to preserve the essential character of the deity.
He added that women in the restricted age group are not barred from worshipping Lord Ayyappa altogether, as they can visit other temples dedicated to the deity.
The Constitution Bench also comprises Justices Nagarathna, Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The hearing is ongoing.