The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, continued hearings on the Sabarimala review reference, focusing on the tension between religious freedom and fundamental rights. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Travancore Devaswom Board, argued against the “essential religious practices” doctrine.
The Travancore Devaswom Board told the Supreme Court that courts cannot judge religious beliefs of denominations. During the Sabarimala hearing, it argued that practices must be determined by the community, while the court continues to examine issues of religious freedom and equality
The Centre told the Supreme Court that the 2018 Sabarimala judgement was based on the assumption that men are superior, while defending restrictions on women’s entry and highlighting religious practices as a key factor in the ongoing constitutional bench hearing
The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti has moved the Supreme Court seeking intervention in the Sabarimala review case, arguing that courts should not decide essential religious practices. It said faith-based traditions must be protected unless they violate public order, morality or health
The Sabarimala women’s entry issue resurfaced in Kerala ahead of a Supreme Court hearing, triggering a political debate. The opposition demanded clarity from the LDF government, while ruling party leaders said the stand would be revealed in court
