Sabarimala Reference | Day 7

A nine-judge Constitution Bench will hear arguments on issues concerning the Essential Religious Practice doctrine, the interpretation of Article 25 and 26, and the validity of the 2018 Judgement which held that practices prohibiting the entry of women in the Sabarimala Temple were unconstitutional. The Court has heard six days of arguments so far.

On Day 1, the Union government argued that religious denominations should be allowed to manage their religious affairs and challenged the ERP doctrine.

On Day 2, the Union argued that constitutional morality cannot be a ground to review religious practices.

On Day 3, the Union invoked “sampradaya” and “sadachaar” and questioned the limits of judicial scrutiny in religious matters.

On Day 4, parties favouring a review of the 2018 decision argued that public interest litigations cannot challenge religious practices.

On Day 5, the review petitioners argued that the ERP doctrine was “unstable” and “unworkable”

On Day 6, the Court asked whether a believer or a devotee can challenge a religious practice followed in a temple.