The Supreme Court has pushed back against the Union government's argument that courts cannot sit in judgment over religious practices by branding them as superstitious or irrational.
A nine-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant emphasized that while courts may exercise restraint in matters of faith, they cannot be completely denuded of jurisdiction where a practice is found to be egregiously violative of constitutional guarantees.
The bench also discussed the meaning of 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26, with the Centre arguing that it should be understood as 'societal morality' rather than 'constitutional morality.'
The hearing is part of the Supreme Court's review of the Sabarimala reference, which includes questions arising from the 2019 reference, including the scope of judicial review over religious practices and the contours of the essential religious practices doctrine.
