Supreme Court Addresses Religious Activities and Public Access

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that religious activities cannot block public roads, asserting the autonomy of religious communities while allowing government intervention when secular activities are disrupted. This decision arose during hearings on discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple. The court's nine-judge bench highlighted the importance of balancing religious freedom with public access, stating that while communities can practice their faith, they must not infringe on public rights. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the state has the authority to regulate such activities to ensure the smooth functioning of secular life. This ruling is significant in the ongoing discourse about the intersection of religion and public policy.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 28, 2026, 22:54 IST

Supreme Court's Stance on Religious Practices

New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court remarked that public roads cannot be obstructed under the guise of religious activities. The court emphasized that while religious communities have autonomy in their worship practices, the government can intervene if such activities disrupt secular functions.

This statement was made during hearings concerning various petitions related to discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. A nine-judge constitutional bench, which included Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, addressed the scope and limits of religious freedom across different faiths.

On the ninth day of hearings, advocate Akshay Nagarajan, representing the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, argued that the government should not interfere with the rights of any religious community under Article 25(2)(k).

Understanding Article 25(2)
According to Article 25(2)(k) of the Constitution, the state has the authority to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practices. Nagarajan contended that the protection offered under Article 25 is not limited to matters of faith but also encompasses external expressions of faith, including rituals, customs, ceremonies, and practices related to the worship of specific deities.

Justice Nagarathna's Observations
In light of these arguments, Justice Nagarathna noted that if religious activities impact secular functions, the state may intervene. She stated, “For instance, if there is a temple wanting to celebrate an annual festival, such as a chariot procession, you cannot block all the roads surrounding the temple. This has nothing to do with religion.

You can conduct your religious activities, but not by obstructing public roads. The state can intervene for regulation.” Justice Nagarathna reiterated that while the court cannot adjudicate on the religious matters of any community due to the autonomy granted under the Constitution, it can step in when secular activities are affected.