New Delhi: Ahead of the commencement of hearings before a nine-judge Constitution Bench in the Sabarimala review matter, written submissions filed on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board have urged the Supreme Court to adopt a “community-centric and subjective” understanding of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution, cautioning against judicial reinterpretation of religious beliefs and practices.
The submissions, settled by senior advocate Dr Abhishek Singhvi, contend that religion constitutes a “collective system of beliefs and practices” and must be assessed from the standpoint of the community that professes it, rather than through external or judicially imposed standards.
“The beliefs and practices of the community have to be judged by the subjective belief of the community…it is not for the Court to sit in judgment on that belief,” the written submissions stated, adding that courts must refrain from substituting their own notions of rationality or morality in matters of faith.
Arguing against the continued application of the “essential religious practices” doctrine, the submissions contended that such a test finds no basis in the text of Article 25 and amounts to an impermissible judicial addition to constitutional limitations.
“It is impermissible to add, modify or subtract from the specific constitutional text,” the document stated, adding that the so-called essentiality test introduces a “fifth derogation” beyond the explicitly enumerated grounds of public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
The Board has contended that once a belief or practice is found to be genuinely and conscientiously held as part of a religion, it must receive constitutional protection, subject only to the expressly stated restrictions.
At the same time, the document clarified that religious freedom is not absolute and remains subject to statutory regulation in cases where practices run contrary to public order, morality, health, or other fundamental rights.
Highlighting constitutional intent, the submissions trace the framing of Article 25 to the Constituent Assembly debates, asserting that the permissible limitations on religious freedom were “arrived at after detailed and meticulous deliberations” and cannot be expanded through judicial innovation.
The plea further argues that religion, though incapable of precise definition, encompasses a wide range of practices, including rituals, ceremonies, modes of worship, and even aspects such as entry, dress, and conduct within religious spaces, all of which form part of protected religious expression.
It also contended that individual rights under Article 25 must be harmonised with the collective rights of a religious denomination, stressing that individual assertions cannot override the shared beliefs and practices of the community.
The submissions further stated that judicial review in matters of religion must be minimal and self-restrained, cautioning against courts “rationalising religion” or imposing their own notions of morality on faith-based practices.
The submissions have been filed in the batch of review petitions arising out of the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment permitting entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple. In the background, the apex court had earlier fixed a detailed schedule for hearing the reference, with arguments to commence from April 7 and conclude by April 22.
A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant clarified that the issue of maintainability of the reference already stands settled and identified seven substantial questions of law for consideration by the Constitution Bench.
(IANS)
