Government Questions Court's Role in Defining Essential Religious Practices

The Union government has raised significant questions about the role of courts in defining essential religious practices, particularly in the context of women's entry into the Sabarimala temple. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before a nine-judge bench that the 2018 ruling lifting the ban on menstruating women should be reconsidered. He emphasized that the restriction is based on age and the unique nature of the deity, urging that Western notions of patriarchy should not be applied to Indian traditions. The bench is set to explore the balance between religious freedom and equality under the Constitution, making this a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over religious rights in India.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 7, 2026, 18:26 IST

Government's Stance on Religious Practices

On Tuesday, the Union government raised concerns regarding whether courts should determine what qualifies as an essential religious practice, as reported by a legal news outlet.

During proceedings before a nine-judge bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, argued about constitutional issues surrounding women's entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala and discrimination in other religious sites.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had ruled by a 4:1 majority to lift the ban preventing women of menstruating age from entering the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala.

However, in November 2019, a different five-judge bench referred broader legal questions regarding religious freedom to the nine-judge bench following review petitions against the earlier ruling.

Mehta asserted that the 2018 decision should be reconsidered and overturned, expressing strong disagreement with the view that the restriction on women's entry constituted untouchability.

He maintained that the restriction was age-based and linked to the unique nature of the deity, as reported by another legal news source.

The solicitor general emphasized that Western concepts of patriarchy should not be indiscriminately applied to India, highlighting the importance of the country's civilizational values.

In response, Justice BV Nagarathna noted that if social injustices are labeled as religious practices, the court has the authority to differentiate between the two, according to a report.

Mehta countered that Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution grants the legislature the power to enact laws for social reform, allowing the state to legislate on social welfare and ensure that Hindu religious institutions serve all community members.

The nine-judge bench is tasked with exploring the relationship between the freedom of religion outlined in Articles 25 and 26 and other constitutional provisions, particularly Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection under the law.

The bench will also assess whether a denomination's right to manage its religious affairs under Article 26 is subject to any other provisions in Part III of the Constitution, aside from public order, morality, and health, which pertains to fundamental rights.