Sabarimala Row: Sant Samiti Seeks SC Intervention

New Delhi: The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti has moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the Sabarimala review proceedings, contending that courts should not determine essential religious practices.

A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is scheduled to begin final hearings on April 7 on petitions concerning entry of women into religious places, including the Sabarimala temple, and the scope of religious freedom across faiths.

In its plea, the organisation said courts are not equipped to act as experts in matters of religion and should intervene only when practices violate public order, morality or health. It argued that the right to equality under Article 14 should not override the right to freely profess and practise religion under Article 25.

“Religion is a matter of faith and religious beliefs are held to be sacred by those who share the same faith. Thought, faith and belief are internal, while expression and worship are external manifestations thereof ... The phrase 'equally entitled to', as it occurs in Article 25(1), must mean that each devotee is equally entitled to profess, practice and propagate his religion, as per the tenets of that religion,” the plea said.

“The courts should not determine the essential religious practices because the court is not an expert in religious matters/practice. The courts should step in only when such religious practice violates public order, morality or health,” it added.

The plea also justified the restrictions at Sabarimala, stating that certain temples follow specific traditions linked to the belief that the deity is a “Naishtika Brahmachari”, requiring strict observance of rituals by devotees.

It further submitted that more than 1,000 other temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa do not impose similar age-based restrictions, indicating that the practice at Sabarimala is site-specific.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, had set aside the ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years at the shrine, holding the practice unconstitutional.

The forthcoming hearings will examine the scope of judicial review in matters of religious practice and associated constitutional questions.