'Constitution entrusts religious reform to legislature not courts', Pg2

Key Highlights:

• The Centre argued in the Supreme Court that religious reform should be entrusted to the legislature, not the courts, regarding the Sabarimala temple case.
• The Centre advocated for denomination status for devotees of Lord Ayyappa, asserting that courts shouldn't act as "reformatory overlords."
• A nine-judge bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, is reviewing petitions against the 2018 SC judgment that removed age restrictions on women entering the Sabarimala temple.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution assigns religious reform to the legislature.

Detailed Insights:

• The Centre contends that allowing courts to reform religion without legislation could lead to unlimited judicial intervention in religious traditions and internal affairs of denominations.
• Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees religious freedoms, but the extent of these freedoms is under examination by the Supreme Court in the context of the Sabarimala case.

Sabrimala Case.png

• The court is concerned about upholding constitutionalism and preventing majoritarianism from overriding constitutional principles, as highlighted by Justice Bagchi.
• The debate revolves around the balance between religious freedom, constitutional rights, and the role of the judiciary versus the legislature in matters of religious reform.
• The 2018 SC judgment sparked widespread debate about the intersection of religion, gender equality, and constitutional rights in India.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 25: Guarantees the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
• Denomination: A recognized autonomous branch of a religion.
• Majoritarianism: A political philosophy that asserts that a majority has the right to make decisions that affect the minority.