Can The Court Label A Practice As 'Superstitious'? Supreme Court Questions Centre’s Stand

The first two days of hearings before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, examining issues including the essential religious practices, witnessed intense arguments over a fundamental question: who determines whether a religious practice is “superstitious.”

The Union government argued that a secular court cannot adjudicate on whether a religious practice amounts to superstition, suggesting that such determinations lie beyond judicial competence. However, judges on the nine-member Bench pushed back, observing that courts are well within their powers to examine whether a practice violates constitutional principles, particularly public order, morality, and fundamental rights.

The proceedings stem from the 2018 Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala judgment, in which the apex court struck down the long-standing practice of barring women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala Temple.

The 2018 judgment triggered a massive backlash from religious groups, backed by community organisations and political parties such as the BJP and the Congress, which argued that age-old rituals and traditions should be preserved.

The Kerala government at the time, led by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, took an assertive stand in favour of implementing the verdict, deploying the state machinery to ensure compliance with the court’s order.

However, following electoral setbacks widely attributed to the controversy, the ruling party appeared to recalibrate its position. It has since adopted a markedly different stance in court, aligning more closely with the arguments advanced by religious groups.

At present, both the Union government and the CPIM-led Left Democratic Front government in Kerala have converged in their opposition to permitting women of all ages entry into the Sabarimala Temple.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that even if a practice is deemed superstitious, the courts can't decide that. Invoking Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, he contended that the responsibility lies with the legislature to enact reform laws. Legislatures, he said, are empowered to identify and regulate practices deemed superstitious, pointing to existing laws addressing black magic and similar practices.

This argument drew probing responses from the Bench. Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether courts would remain powerless even in extreme cases such as witchcraft. He asked whether, in the absence of legislative action, the Court could intervene under Article 32 by applying constitutional principles relating to public order, morality, and health—without entering the domain of “essential religious practices.”

Chief Justice Surya Kant echoed this line of reasoning, observing that the Court retains the authority to step in when any practice runs contrary to public order, morality, or health. “The moment there is such a kind of practice, the Court will simply say that it is contrary to public order, morality or health,” he noted.

The present proceedings trace their origins to the 2019 review of the landmark Sabarimala judgment. While the Supreme Court declined to stay its 2018 ruling, it referred a set of larger constitutional questions to a nine-judge Bench. These include the scope of the “essential religious practices” doctrine and the interplay between Articles 25 and 26—guaranteeing religious freedom—and Article 14, which ensures equality before the law. The Court also sought to reconcile differing interpretations laid down in precedents such as the Shirur Mutt case and the Durgah Committee case

In Kerala, the Sabarimala issue has remained a politically charged subject since 2018. Initially, most political parties—barring the Left—opposed the implementation of the verdict. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan had then led a strong campaign against what he described as discriminatory practices, asserting that his government’s position would not change even at electoral cost.

However, following a severe electoral setback in 2019, the ruling front gradually recalibrated its stance. In recent years, the government has adopted a more conciliatory approach, including outreach efforts toward Ayyappa devotees. The government also organised a global Ayyappa summit, a move widely interpreted as an effort to reach out to and placate devotees.

Before the nine-judge Bench, it has now submitted that matters relating to temple rituals should be left to religious authorities.

As a result, all major stakeholders—the Union government, the state government, and the Travancore Devaswom Board—are broadly aligned in opposing unrestricted entry of women into the temple.