Today, the Supreme Court issued a warning to petitioners defending women's rights to enter the Sabarimala temple against the "annihilation of religion" that results from permitting people to adopt religious rituals "selectively."
The top court's nine-judge bench considered fundamental constitutional issues arising from the 2018 Sabarimala ruling on the tenth day of the hearing. These issues included the reach of Articles 25 and 26, the degree of judicial review over religious practices, and the definition of "essential religious practice" and the court's authority to rule on it.
"If you accept the belief in the deity, can you reject the practices associated with it?" was a crucial question that Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked during today's sessions.

"Civilisational Past Cannot Be Ignored"
During Advocate Indira Jaisingh's arguments, Justice BV Nagarathna emphasised the significance of historical context in interpreting religious liberty.The religious and cultural heritage of our country cannot be disregarded. It's okay to have a living Constitution, but let's remember the past. The past shapes the present. "You can't claim to have a clean slate and ignore the past," she said.
Justice Nagarathana noted that "it has been argued that religion cannot be hollowed out in the name of social reform" in response to Jaising's suggestion that it may be debated.The Court Warns of the Dangers of Over-Intervention
Justice MM Sundresh cautioned throughout the hearing that permitting people to choose which religious activities to follow could have serious repercussions.What's left if everyone says, "I don't want this practice?" "The entire idea of religion itself will be destroyed by this kind of interpretation," he declared.
The worry was repeated by Justice Nagarathna, who said that such a strategy would result in "something like annihilation of religion, which we do not want to be a part of."Religious issues need to be interpreted broadly, and courts shouldn't get involved in them in general," she continued.Concerns Regarding Article 25 Rights
A fundamental question about the essence of the right under Article 25(1) was brought up by Chief Justice Surya Kant."Is it a fundamental right to enter a temple, or does it represent a right which existed as on January 25, 1950?" he enquired, pointing out that the response could dictate the scope of constitutional protection.
Jaising argued that, with the exception of the restrictions expressly mentioned in the Constitution, her entitlement is derived directly from Article 25(1).                                  Would a Believer Question Current Beliefs?
The bench also looked at whether only believers have the right to enter places of worship.
Enquiring about intent and belief, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, "The question is, if you go there as a believer, how do you get the knowledge of what you believe." As part of a package, you are informed of specific items. Can you then claim that you embrace certain aspects but not others? "Are you able to separate that belief?" he asked.
"If you accept the belief in the deity, can you reject the practices associated with it?" he asked, refining the question.

In response, Jaising stated that admission to a temple must be accompanied by "shraddha" (respect), but that exclusion must be supported by a "legal injury.""I won't go if you show me the legal harm," she stated, adding that courts will need to consider the ramifications in situations involving conflicting rights.To be clear, we are talking about the extent and scope of the right under Article 25. I'm arguing that, as long as I travel with faith, I have the right under Article 25 to visit a public house of worship. She contended, "I am also saying that it is not important whether I am a believer or not, but I must go with shraddha, with respect, to introspect."

Justice Amanullah enquired, "if you say you go with reverence, but you know that you are upsetting the sentiments of the majority there, then what?"I have faith in it. It's introspection, but you can call it faith. Jaising answered, "It's an issue of self-realization.
In response, Justice Amanullah said, "So your introspection is that even if others are hurt, you will still act in your own way."
The notion of hurt, according to Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, does apply in law, but it must be a legal injury."You inform me of the lawful harm I am inflicting on someone. I'm stating that both of us ladies who want to join the Sabarimala shrine are claiming a legal right, and I won't go if you demonstrate the legal harm. I'm awaiting the response. We will need to consider the ramifications if there is a dispute over rights, she contended.
Justice MM Sundresh concurred with Justice Amanullah at this point:
"My brother is correct in what he says. There may be repercussions at times. I'll explain why. Let's say there is a widely held belief. People have specific ways of practicing, professing, and spreading. Everybody walks there and declares, "I don't want this; I want it in a specific way."

I don't want this practice, says someone else. Then what's left? This kind of interpretation will be disastrous for the entire idea of religion itself, if you look at it closely.

"If you look at it that way, we are faced with something like annihilation of religion, which we do not want to be a part of," Justice Nagarathna continued. It is necessary to define religious subjects broadly. We obtain 25 (2). However, courts shouldn't usually become involved in religious disputes.
The boundary between rituals and entry
Jaising distinguished between interfering with ceremonies and having the right to enter a temple.There isn't a queue at the entrance. "The boundary is at ritualistic performance," she stated, noting that courts have continuously upheld rituals.

Religious Autonomy vs. Social Reform
The Constitution does permit social reform, especially in Hindu religious organisations, as Justice Nagarathna noted.Referring to clauses that allow for legislative action, she stated, "The framers of the Constitution were aware that matters of religion cannot be such that social reform is not permitted, or that entry is denied to different classes or sections."Religious issues cannot be debated because they are matters of conscience. This is in consideration of the idol's philosophy. It is a component of religion, Justice Nagarathana continued.

This came as a response to Jaising's argument that the doctrine of recognition will come. 

"This question was asked in Shayara Bano case. Justice RF Nariman, who is an ordained priest, had asked this question. He said -- can you tell me that court of law can get into this? I said once recognition is given... it enters Part III. It becomes Constitutional law," Jaisingh argued. 

Justice BV Nagarathna replied: "That is why social reform is required, and the State Legislature or Parliament can step in. Power is enabled under the Constitution. The Constitution makers were conscious that matters of religion cannot be such that social reform is not permitted, or that entry is denied to different classes and sections of Hindus... This is only with regard to Hindu religious institutions. It is not with regard to other religions. That is why there are specific provisions in Hindu law."

This is limited to Hindu religious establishments. It has nothing to do with other faiths. Hindu law contains several provisions because of this.
The hearing will go on, and in one of the most important issues pertaining to religion that the court has ever heard, it is anticipated that the court will further consider how individual rights, religious practices, and constitutional morality interact.
In another intriguing exchange, Jaising initially informed the Supreme Court that she represents two ladies, one of whom is a Scheduled Caste lady, and she asked whether it would be against Article 17, which outlaws untouchability, to deny them admission to Sabarimala.

She claimed that although men from all castes are permitted entrance, women between the ages of 10 and 50 are not, so compelling them to "live half a life" during what she called the most "productive and creative period" of their lives.
Jaising argued that such exclusion amounts to a "substantial deprivation" of rights under Article 25(1), citing the Supreme Court's Shirur Mutt ruling. He further stated that any denial of equality is a severe injury in and of itself.
She also told the court that the two women she represents, Bindu and Kanaka Durga, had been able to enter the temple following the 2018 ruling but had encountered harsh criticism—from mob attacks to social exclusion—alleging a lack of state protection and emphasising the practical repercussions of imposing restrictions.