SC: You cannot hollow out religion in name of social welfare, reform, Pg2

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court is examining constitutional questions arising from the 2018 Sabarimala judgment regarding age restrictions on women's entry.
• Justice B V Nagarathna stated that religion cannot be hollowed out in the name of social reform.
• The bench is hearing submissions on the relationship between Article 25 (individual religious freedom) and Article 26 (rights of religious denominations) of the Constitution.
• Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued against interpreting Article 25(2)(b) in a way that decimates the primary right under Article 25(1).

Detailed Insights:

• The 2018 Sabarimala judgment struck down age restrictions preventing women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, sparking widespread debate on faith and equality.
• Article 26(b) grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, while Article 25(1) guarantees individual religious freedom, both subject to public order, morality, and health.
• Article 25(2)(a) empowers the state to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice, while Article 25(2)(b) allows for laws promoting social welfare and reform, including opening Hindu religious institutions to all classes.
• The core issue is balancing individual religious freedom with the rights of religious denominations and the state's power to enact social reforms.
• The court is grappling with the challenge of determining the validity of religious beliefs held by millions in the context of Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 25: Guarantees individual freedom of conscience and the right to practice religion.
• Article 26: Protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
• Social Reform: Legislative or societal efforts to improve social structures and address inequalities.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A legal action initiated in court for the protection of public interest.