'People's will through lawmakers can bring religious reforms': Supreme Court

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the Sabarimala reference case, cautioned that constitutional courts should be extremely relucta...

What Happened

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the Sabarimala reference case, cautioned that constitutional courts should be extremely reluctant to alter religious practices.
The Bench observed that only the will of the people expressed through elected representatives in Parliament and state legislatures can legitimately bring about reforms in religious customs and practices.
The court noted that it is practically impossible to scrutinize every religious practice for its constitutional validity, signalling a need for judicial self-restraint in matters of faith.
The nine-judge bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, is examining seven broad constitutional questions arising out of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, with implications for pending cases involving entry of women in dargahs, Parsi excommunication practices, female genital mutilation, and the Dawoodi Bohra community's excommunication norms.

Static Topic Bridges

Articles 25 and 26 — Freedom of Religion

Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution guarantee the right to freedom of religion. Article 25(1) gives all persons the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Article 26 gives every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, establish institutions, and administer property.

Article 25(2)(a) allows the State to regulate or restrict economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practice.
Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to legislate for social welfare and reform, and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes of Hindus.
The term "sections of Hindus" in Article 25(2)(b) is one of the seven questions before the nine-judge bench.
Article 26 rights belong to religious denominations, not individuals, and can override individual claims within that group.

Connection to this news: The court's caution about judicial overreach directly engages the scope of Articles 25 and 26 — specifically whether courts or legislatures should be the primary arbiters of what constitutes a valid religious practice warranting protection.

The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test

Originating in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test is the primary doctrinal tool used by Indian courts to determine which religious practices receive constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26. A practice is "essential" if it is integral to the religion such that the religion itself would be altered fundamentally without it.

The ERP test has been criticised for requiring courts to make theological determinations they may be ill-equipped for.
In Durgah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961), the Supreme Court clarified that only practices truly essential to a religion receive protection under Article 26.
The nine-judge bench is considering whether to retain, redefine, or significantly narrow the ERP test.
A key referred question is whether courts can even be asked to determine the essentiality of a practice at the behest of a person outside that religious denomination.

Connection to this news: The court's observation that it cannot scrutinize every religious practice is effectively a critique of the breadth of the ERP doctrine, pointing toward a more deferential role for courts and a greater role for the legislature.

The doctrine of separation of powers under the Indian Constitution distributes legislative, executive, and judicial functions across three co-equal branches. While the judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution, Parliament and state legislatures hold democratic legitimacy as elected bodies expressing the will of the people.

Articles 245 and 246 vest legislative power in Parliament (Union List, Concurrent List) and state legislatures (State List).
Article 13 makes any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void, placing courts as reviewers of legislative action — but not as primary reformers.
Major social reform legislation — from the Hindu Code Bills (1955–56) to the Sati Prevention Act (1987) — has historically proceeded through Parliament, not judicial decree.

Connection to this news: The Bench's observation reinforces the constitutional design that social and religious reform is primarily a legislative function, with courts serving as a check rather than as architects of change.

Key Facts & Data

The nine-judge Constitution Bench is led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
The reference arose from the 2018 Sabarimala verdict (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala) where a 4:1 Constitution Bench held the exclusion of women aged 10–50 from the Sabarimala temple unconstitutional.
A five-judge review bench subsequently referred seven broader constitutional questions to the nine-judge bench.
The seven questions include: the interplay of Articles 25 and 26 with other Part III rights; the scope of "public order, morality and health" under Article 25(1); the meaning of "sections of Hindus" under Article 25(2)(b); whether essential religious practices are protected under Article 26; and whether a non-member of a denomination can challenge that denomination's practices by filing a PIL.
The verdict will have implications for cases involving entry of Muslim women in dargahs/mosques, excommunication of Parsi women who marry non-Parsis, and excommunication within the Dawoodi Bohra community.