New Delhi, April 7: The central government has supported petitions for reconsideration regarding the 2018 decision allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabari Mala temple in Kerala’s Pathanamthitta district.
Ahead of today’s hearing in the Supreme Court, the government clarified that this issue extends beyond gender equality; it encompasses religious faith and tradition. The government emphasized that religious practices should not be evaluated against modernity or rationality.
In a detailed affidavit submitted through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the government stated that assessing religious practices based on standards like rationality, modernity, or scientificity would constitute judicial overreach.
According to the center, such actions would impose philosophical views on the internal principles of religion, which is not in line with the Constitution. The government argued that determining whether a religious practice is rational cannot be part of constitutional review. The affidavit noted that judges are neither trained to interpret religious texts nor institutionally equipped to resolve theological questions.
The center also questioned the principle of “essential religious practice.” It asserted that the authority to determine the necessity of a practice should lie with the respective religious community, based on their traditions, scriptures, and beliefs. The court should only intervene if a practice violates public order, health, morality, or fundamental rights.
In its response, the government stated that worship at the Sabari Mala temple is conducted in the form of ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate). The restriction on women’s entry is tied to this form and is part of religious tradition, not discrimination. Judicial review of the deity’s attributes and form is not permissible.
The government maintained that courts cannot declare a deity’s form or characteristics as “unnecessary” or “irrational.” It emphasized that the deity’s ‘judicial personality’ is legally recognized, and courts should regard the interpretations of a community as final. If courts categorize religious traditions as ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential,’ it would undermine the faith of the devotees.
The government called for a reconsideration of the 2018 decision by a five-judge bench, arguing that the ruling examined the necessity of Lord Ayyappa’s ‘celibate form.’ It contended that such an approach places the court in the role of a “theological arbiter,” a position not sanctioned by the Constitution.
The government described the principle of “constitutional morality” as vague and a concept developed by the judiciary, arguing that it lacks a clear basis in the Constitution. This principle could allow courts to alter religious traditions, akin to amending the Constitution through judicial interpretation.
The center urged that “courts should not change religion from their perspective.” It warned that rejecting religious practices based on “constitutional morality” is dangerous, as it could allow judges’ personal views to dominate. The right to evolve religious traditions over time belongs to society and communities, not the courts.
The government also questioned the Joseph Shine ruling, seeking to declare it law. This 2018 Supreme Court decision decriminalized adultery.
The center advised, “Courts should not rely on external materials.” Constitutional decisions should be based solely on the Constitution, prior judgments, and established legal principles. Judges’ lectures and writings are personal and variable opinions that should not form the basis of judicial decisions.
Citing the powers of the Supreme Court (Articles 129 and 141), the government stated that court decisions should be institutional and principle-based. The influence of personal opinions or academic views could undermine judicial impartiality.
According to the government’s arguments, the Sabari Mala dispute has evolved from a mere temple entry issue into a broader constitutional debate. The primary question raised in the 2019 reference order concerns the limits of judicial review over religious practices.
My name is Himanshu Tiwari. I am an experienced content writer with several years of expertise in the field. Currently, I contribute to Daily Kiran, creating engaging and informative content across a variety of categories including TECHNOLOGY, health, travel, education, and automobiles. My goal is to deliver accurate, insightful, and captivating information through my words to help readers stay informed and empowered.
Leave a Comment