Re- Examining Faith Through The Lens Of The Constitution – SABARIMALA

Introduction:- when a Decided Case Returns to the Spotlight

The Sabarimala Temple Entry Case has once again become a subject of national

discussion, not because a new judgement has been delivered, but because the issues

arising from it remain unresolved before a larger bench of the Supreme Court of India.

The “reference” in the context is crucial – it signifies that the court itself is reconsidering

broader constitutional questions linked to religious practices and gender equality. This

renewed attention in national media reflects how certain constitutional dilemmas cannot

be settled by a single judgement and instead require deeper judicial introspection.

Understanding the ‘Reference’: What Makes It Legally Significant

The term “ reference” in the Sabarimala context does not simply mean review; it

indicates that the court has framed larger constitutional questions and referred them to a

Constitution Bench of greater strength. This step was taken because the issues raised go

beyond a single temple or practice. By doing so, the Supreme Court Of India

acknowledged that the balance between religious freedom and fundamental rights needs

authoritative clarification. This is precisely why the matter continues to be discussed in

legal circles and media platforms alike.

Background of the Dispute: Tradition Meets Constitutional Scrutiny

The controversy originated from the long- standing practice at the Sabarimala Temple,

where women of a certain age group were restricted from entry. While this was defended

as an essential religious practice linked to the celibate nature of the deity, it was

challenged on the grounds of equality and non- discrimination. What initially appeared as

a localized religious issue soon evolved into a constitutional question with nationwide

implications.

The 2018 Judgement: A Trigger Rather Than a Conclusion

In Indian Young Lawyers Association V. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court of India ruled

in favour of allowing women's entry into the temple. While the judgment was hailed as

progressive, it also triggered widespread resistance and raised questions about the

limits of judicial intervention in religious matters. Importantly, instead of setting the

issue, the judgment acted as a catalyst for further legal challenges and societal debate.

From Judgement to Reference: Why the issue Didn't End in 2018

Following the 2018 decision, multiple review petitions were filed. Rather than overturning

or affirming its earlier ruling, the court took an unusual step in 2019 by referring certain

broader questions to a larger bench. This transformed the case from a dispute over

temple entry into a constitutional reference on the scope of religious freedom itself. This

shift is what keeps the issue alive in current legal and media discussions.

National Media Relevance: Why the case is Back in Headlines

The Sabarimala reference continues to feature in national media because the larger

bench has yet to deliver a final verdict. Each hearing, observation, or mention of related

issues brings it back into public discourse. Moreover, debates around similar topics such as religious dress codes, entry restrictions in places of worship, and gender -

based exclusions – often revive the Sabarimala discussion. Media narratives now frame it

as a test case for the future of constitutional rights in religious contexts.

The Broader Constitutional Questions Raised by the Reference

The reference raises several critical questions:

● Can courts interfere in religious practices claimed to be essential?

● Should equality override religious customs in all situations?

● What is the extent of judicial power in matters of faith?

By referring to these questions, the Supreme Court of India has essentially opened a

wider debate that goes far beyond Sabarimala. This is why the case is considered a

landmark not just for what it decided, but for what it continues to question.

Essential Religious Practices Doctrine: At the Centre of the Debate

A major issue under reconsideration is the “ Essential Religious Practices” doctrine. This

principle allows courts to determine whether a particular practice is fundamental to a

religion. However, the Sabarimala reference has exposed the challenges of this

approach. Critics argue that judges are not equipped to decide theological matters, while

supporters believe such scrutiny is necessary to prevent discriminatory practices. The

future of this doctrine may well depend on the reference.

Balancing Faith and Fundamental Rights

The Sabarimala case highlights the ongoing struggle to balance faith with fundamental

rights. While Article 25 guarantees religious freedom, it is not absolute and is subject to

other considerational provisions. The reference forces a re- examination of whether

religious practices can be limited in the interest of equality and dignity. This balancing

act lies at the heart of modern constitutionalism in India.

Societal Impact: Law vs Ground Reality

Even after the 2018 judgment, the implementation on the ground faced significant

resistance. This demonstrates that legal rulings alone cannot bring immediate social

change. The Sabarimala issue reflects a broader reality – constitutional ideals often take

time to be accepted in society. The reference, therefore, is not just a legal exercise but

also a reflection of ongoing social transformation.

Comparative Insight: A Global Constructional Challenge

Across the world, courts have grappled with similar issues involving religion and

equality. While some jurisdictions prioritize religious autonomy, others place greater

emphasis on individual rights. The Indian approach, as seen in the Sabarimala reference,

attempts to strike a balance but continues to evolve. This makes the case relevant not

just nationally but also in comparative constitutional discussions.

Critical Perspective: Judicial Prudence or Delay?

The decision to refer the matter to a larger bench has been viewed in different ways.

Some see it as judicial prudence, allowing for a more comprehensive examination of

complex issues. Others criticize it as a delay in delivering final justice. Regardless of

perspective, the references underscores the difficulty of resolving deeply contested

constitutional questions.

Current Hearings: What is Happening in 2026

As of April 2026, a Nine- Judge Constitution Bench is actively hearing the Sabarimala

reference. The court is examining critical questions about the relationship between

religion and constitutional rights. During recent hearings, judges have emphasized that

Constitutional courts must rise above personal religious beliefs and interpret matters

based on constitutional values.

At the same time, the court has also acknowledged the sensitivity of interfering with

long- standing beliefs, noting the difficulty of declaring practices followed by millions as

incorrect. This reflects the delicate balance the judiciary is trying to maintain.

Conclusion: An Unfinished Constitutional Journey

The Sabarimala case reference represents an ongoing constitutional journey rather than

a concluded chapter. As the Supreme Court of India prepares to address the broader

questions involved, the outcome will shape the future of the relationship between

religious and fundamental rights in India. Until then, the case will continue to occupy a

central place in national media and legal discourse, serving as a reminder that the

constitution is not static but constantly evolving.

Author: Anshika Verma, Pt. Motilal Nehru law college