New Delhi, April 15 (NationPress) A nine-judge Constitution Bench is currently engaged in the Sabarimala review, which explores the balance between religious freedom and fundamental rights. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court remarked that one of the most challenging responsibilities for a constitutional court is to declare the beliefs of millions as erroneous.

Led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, the Constitution Bench listened to arguments from senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Travancore Devaswom Board, which opposes the ongoing application of the “essential religious practices” doctrine.

“A court's most difficult task may be to declare that the beliefs of millions are wrong or erroneous,” stated the CJI Kant-led Bench. The apex court is also assessing whether public interest litigations (PILs) from non-believers should be acknowledged in cases related to religious faith and practices.

Justice BV Nagarathna warned against excessive judicial involvement in religious affairs, stating, “We cannot undermine religion under the guise of social welfare reform.”

During the proceedings, Singhvi urged the court to eliminate the essential religious practices test, arguing that it incorrectly allows judges to define what constitutes the core of a religion.

“Once Your Lordships permit the terms ‘essential’ or ‘integral’, it inevitably leads to a framework where judges or external adjudicators define what is essential or non-essential in religion,” Singhvi asserted.

He emphasized that religious beliefs and practices should be evaluated through the lens of the community that holds them, rather than through external judicial standards.

“The Court must respect the community's beliefs... it is not the role of the Court to judge that belief,” he added.

Singhvi further claimed that if a practice is genuinely and sincerely recognized as part of a religion, it should be afforded constitutional protection, limited only by the explicit constraints of public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights under Article 25.

While acknowledging that courts may intervene in “extreme cases,” such as those that threaten life or public order, he maintained that the threshold for considering PILs in religious matters should be significantly elevated.

Written submissions made on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board similarly urged the Supreme Court to embrace a “community-centric and subjective” interpretation of religion under Article 25, warning against judicial reinterpretation of faith-based practices.

The submissions argue that the “essential religious practices” test lacks constitutional basis and amounts to an unacceptable judicial addition to the clearly defined limitations.

The Supreme Court is presently examining broader issues related to the interaction between religious freedom and other fundamental rights, including the scope of judicial review over religious practices and denominational rights under Articles 25 and 26.

Besides the Sabarimala case, the Constitution Bench will also deliberate on related issues such as the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, the rights of Parsi women to access fire temples after interfaith marriages, the validity of excommunication practices, and the legality of female genital mutilation within the Dawoodi Bohra community.