Supreme Court Affirms Authority Over Superstitious Practices in Sabarimala Case
The Supreme Court of India has affirmed its jurisdiction over practices deemed superstitious within religions, particularly in the context of the Sabarimala temple case. During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that it is the legislature's role to identify and reform such practices, while the court maintains the authority to classify them as superstitions. Justice Amanullah emphasized that the court's decisions are not bound by legislative conclusions. This case highlights the ongoing debate regarding religious freedom and discrimination against women at sacred sites in India.
Apr 8, 2026, 16:21 IST
Supreme Court's Jurisdiction on Religious Practices
The Supreme Court stated on Wednesday that it possesses the authority to rule on practices associated with superstition within any religion. This declaration was made in response to the central government's argument that a secular court should not adjudicate such matters, as judges are experts in law, not religion. A constitutional bench of nine judges, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, is currently hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple, and the scope of religious freedom across various faiths.
Government's Position on Superstitions
Initially, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, questioned how the court determines whether a practice is superstitious. He argued that even if a practice is deemed superstitious, it is not the court's role to declare it as such. According to Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, it is the legislature's responsibility to intervene and enact reform laws. Mehta informed the bench, which included Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, that the legislature can identify a practice as superstitious and necessitate reforms. He noted that various laws exist to prevent practices like black magic.
Judicial Authority on Superstitions
In response to Mehta's argument, Justice Amanullah remarked that the assertion is quite straightforward, as the court indeed has the authority to classify something as superstition. He stated, "The legislature will make the final decision. However, you cannot claim in court that the legislature's decision is absolute. That cannot be the case." Mehta contended that a secular court cannot simply label a religious practice as superstition, as the court lacks the requisite scholarly capacity. He added, "Honorable judges are experts in law, not in religion." The Solicitor General further argued that what is considered religious in Nagaland might be viewed as superstition by others, emphasizing the diversity of society. He mentioned that Maharashtra has laws against black magic, and they could argue that such practices are prevalent in their region and thus protected under Article 25(2)(b).