Published Apr 08, 2026 | 12:52 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 08, 2026 | 12:52 PM
Supreme Court of India. Credit: iStock
Synopsis: Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued that courts should not decide whether a religious practice is “superstitious” or not, saying such questions were best left to legislatures under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.
A Supreme Court Bench has orally suggested that courts may intervene in cases involving witchcraft or similar practices, on grounds of public order, morality, or health, even if there is no specific legislation in place.
The suggestion came as a nine-judge Constitutional Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant resumed hearing on the second day, Wednesday, 8 April, on various contentious religious issues, including allowing women of childbearing age to worship at the Ayyappa temple in Kerala’s Sabarimala.
During the hearing, Justice Partha Sarathi Bagchi raised the example of witchcraft, asking whether even if claimed as a religious practice, it could still be described as superstition.
Earlier, the Chief Justice urged all sides to keep oral submissions brief and rely more on written arguments.
Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued that courts should not decide whether a religious practice is “superstitious” or not, saying such questions were best left to legislatures under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.
Referring to earlier judgments, including the Shirur Mutt case, he said the original test was whether a practice was integral to a religion, but over time it evolved into the “essential religious practice” doctrine.
The Bench, however questioned whether courts could completely avoid examining such practices.
Justice MM Sundresh observed that Article 25(2)(a) allows regulation of religious practices even if religious belief itself remains protected.
The Chief Justice noted that the word “essential” did not appear in Article 25 but has been judicially introduced as a condition for protecting religious practices.
Justice BV Nagarathna observed that essential religious practice must be understood from within the philosophy of that specific religion, and not by comparing it with beliefs of another faith.
Besides the Sabarimala issue, the Constitution Bench is also examining petitions related to the Dawoodi Bohra khatna ritual, restrictions on women entering certain mosques and the rights of Parsi women who marry outside the community to enter fire temples.
On Tuesday, Solicitor General Mehta said that restricting the entry of a particular gender within a specific age group at a place of worship cannot automatically be treated as discrimination.
According to the Centre, such issues fall within the sphere of religious faith and denominational autonomy, and courts should exercise limited judicial review.
The Centre told the court that the 2018 verdict allowing women of all age groups into Sabarimala was wrongly decided and should be reconsidered.
It objected to the earlier finding that the restriction amounted to untouchability under Article 17, arguing that the bar applied only to women of menstruating age and was linked to the deity’s unique character at Sabarimala.
It also pointed out that women are not barred from all Ayyappa temples.
The Union government further argued that courts should not decide whether a religious practice is rational, scientific or modern, as that would amount to imposing judicial values on matters of faith.
It said concepts such as constitutional morality are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and should not be expanded to override religious practices.
At the same time, the Centre maintained that practices that violate public order, morality, or health cannot be protected, citing examples such as human sacrifice.
The government also cautioned against creating a rigid definition of “religious denomination” or “essential religious practice”, saying Hinduism is diverse and includes multiple sects, customs, rituals and traditions.
During the hearing, the Bench clarified that it will not examine the correctness of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.
Instead, it will focus on the seven constitutional questions referred to it in 2019, including the scope of judicial intervention in religious matters.
The original 2018 judgment, delivered by a five-judge Bench in a 4:1 verdict, had struck down the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering Sabarimala, holding that devotion cannot be subjected to gender-based exclusion.
In 2019, a review Bench referred broader questions on women’s entry into places of worship across religions to a larger Bench, including issues related to mosques, dargahs and Parsi fire temples.
Currently, 67 petitions are before the court.
Senior advocate K Parameswaran has been appointed amicus curiae. Krishan Kumar Singh is the nodal counsel for the review petitioners. Advocate Shivam Singh will assist the amicus curiae.
The review petitioners and those supporting them will be heard from 7 to 9 April. Those opposing the review petitions and supporting women’s entry will be heard from 14 to 16 April. Reply submissions will be taken up on 21 April, and the amicus curiae is expected to complete final arguments by 22 April.
Senior advocate V Giri will represent temple tantri (priest) Kandararu Rajeevaru. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi will appear for the Travancore Devaswom Board.
On the other side, senior advocates Indira Jaising, Menaka Guruswamy, Shahdan Farasat, Vijay Hansaria, K Radhakrishnan and Sanjay Hegde are expected to defend the 2018 verdict.
The Kerala government, which had supported the 2018 judgment, has now taken a U-turn and is opposing the entry of women into the temple.
The hearing will continue till 22 April.
