SC: Hindu Society Must Unite; Courts Can't Define Parameters Of Essential Religious Practices
Under the Constitution, the religious practice of a particular sect of any religion is protected unless it contravenes morality, public order and health.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : April 22, 2026 at 8:40 PM IST
|Updated : April 22, 2026 at 8:46 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged unity within Hindu society, cautioning against divisive attitudes such as "they cannot come to our temple, and we cannot go to their temple." The top court stressed that it is extremely difficult—if not impossible—for a judicial forum to define the parameters that distinguish essential from non-essential practices of a religious denomination, while hearing Sabarimala review petitions.
The nine-judge Constitution bench is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, and the ambit and scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths. The bench comprises Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The bench said that if a particular religious Hindu denomination follows a set of practices, all of them cannot be said to be essential religious practices if they impinge upon morality, public order, and health. Under the Constitution, the religious practice of a particular sect of any religion is protected unless it contravenes morality, public order and health.
"For a judicial fora these are very difficult, if not impossible, parameters to how to manage the affairs, to declare a particular practice as essential and the other non-essential.…," observed the CJI.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing one of the parties in the matter, said one vital part of religion is emotions, and religion attracts emotions.
"People are attached to particular religious denomination, particular temple…they react very strongly if that emotion is hurt. So, the courts will have to be very slow, with a soft light touch judicial review…," argued Dwivedi.
Justice Nagarathna said: "The Hindu society must unite, unify! Can't say we are one denomination, they are other denomination. They cannot come to our temple. We cannot go to their temple. That cannot be the idea. Denomination will suffer if they do not throw open the temple to others".
Dwivedi said if the state wants other denomination people to be allowed then it can make a law of reform. "If you are allowing there is no need to have a law permitting allowing…what was the position in 1950. The social evil of exclusion was there. Therefore, it was added as throwing opening of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus….," said Justice Nagarathna.
Earlier in the day, the bench observed that while the expression "social welfare and reform" is broad and the state is not an outsider to such processes, the court cannot frame blanket rules applicable to all future situations.
The bench observed that the state, as a representative of the people's will, may legitimately act to address social evils, but judicial assessment would always be context-specific.
"So far as social welfare or reforms are concerned, it is a very wide term, and the state is not a stranger or an alien….if the people want certain social evils to be reformed, probably that power can be exercised. But it is very difficult for us to lay down any future guidance," observed the CJI.
The bench stressed that it will always depend on a case-to-case basis whether the reforms fall under Article 25(2)(b) or, in the name of reforms, amount to an infringement of a religious practice.
Citing a hypothetical situation, the bench also asked whether a state law that expressly permits entry of young women to enter the Sabarimala temple, citing social reform, would amount to an invasion of religious practice or could be sustained as a valid reform measure?
Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing one of the parties in the matter, contended that even in such cases, the court would need to carefully examine the nature and basis of the practice before determining whether the state's intervention qualifies as social reform.
It was submitted before the bench that the court must examine whether the exclusion forms part of an ancient tradition, custom, or usage belonging to a denomination. It was also argued that it is essential to examine whether the exclusion fundamentally deprives devotees of their right to worship.
Subramanium contended that social welfare and reforms must not be a cloak and stressed that there is an element of scrutiny involved to truly examine whether it is advancing social reform. The hearing in the matter will continue tomorrow.
Read More
