Supreme Court begins review of 2018 Sabarimala judgment, Pg1

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court began reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala judgment regarding the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala shrine.
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna stated that social ills cannot be disguised as essential religious practices.
• The Union government argued that religious reform should be driven by the legislature, not the courts.
• The court is evolving a 'judicial policy' for dealing with religious freedom (Article 25) and denominational rights (Article 26).

Detailed Insights:

• The core issue is the extent to which courts can review religious practices deemed "essential" for social reform.
• The Union government questions the judiciary's expertise in determining the essentiality of religious practices, suggesting religious texts require scholarly interpretation.
• The 2018 judgment upheld women's right to enter the temple, rejecting the deity's "Naishtika Brahmachari" form as an essential custom.
• The court is considering whether it should examine the essentiality of religious practices that do not offend public order, morality, and health.
• The debate includes whether courts should intervene in religious matters or if such reforms should be left to the legislature.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
• Article 26: Protects the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
• Essential Religious Practices: Religious activities that constitute the core and essential part of a religion.