'Social Welfare Can't Be Used To Hollow Out Religion’: SC During Sabarimala Hearing
The top court made oral observations while hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : April 15, 2026 at 7:40 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally observed that social welfare cannot be used to hollow out religion, while hearing review petitions in the Sabarimala case and acknowledged that it would be one of the most difficult tasks for a court to declare the beliefs of millions wrong or erroneous.
A nine-judge Constitution bench made oral observations while hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, and on 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. Senior advocate A M Singhvi represented the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which manages the historic Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
It was argued before the bench that while Article 25(2)(b) can be claimed by all sects of Hindus, to demand entry to a Hindu religious institution of public character, the religious denomination will have the right under Article 26(b) to regulate how the inner rituals must be performed. Singhvi advocated for a harmonious interpretation of Article 25(2)(b) and Article 26(b).
The bench asked why Article 25(2)(b) used the phrase "social reform" instead of the words "public order, morality, or health", which are used in the opening of Article 25. Justice Sundresh observed that the Hindu Succession Act could be an example of social reform.
CJI observed that social welfare and reform are preserved by the Constitution. Justice Nagarathna observed, "In the name of social welfare and reform, you cannot hollow out the religion." Singhvi agreed with Justice Nagarathna's observation.
At the end of the day-long hearing, Singhvi addressed the issue raised in the reference, whether the court can entertain a PIL questioning a religious practice when the petitioner does not belong to that religion. He contended that courts should adopt a very high threshold for entertaining such PILs.
Singhvi said PILs by third parties cannot suddenly question the traditions followed for centuries in temples like Sabarimala and Guruvayoor. He stressed that PILs questioning regular religious practices cannot be entertained on the ground of violation of rights.
Justice Nagarathna observed that a PIL should not be entertained for the simple reason that the person who filed it is not a believer and not an aggrieved party. Singhvi said religion is the faith of millions, and a third party is enabled by direct access to Article 32 of the Constitution to change it. He asked why, in 70-80 years of our Republic it never happened?
Singhvi said that the court cannot decide the validity of a religious practice in a PIL without hearing the believers. Justice Sundresh observed, "Can the court decide the issue without hearing the representative of the millions, and where is the mechanism to hear them?" He further queried, "How can the decision be made binding on them?"
The CJI said, "the most difficult task for a court might be how to give a declaration that belief of millions of people is wrong or erroneous". Earlier in the day, TDB contended that religion is a set of beliefs and practices followed by a denomination with a broadly similar identity, and the court cannot sit in judgement of that belief.
The board, which is a statutory autonomous body that manages over 1,000 temples in South India, said that the beliefs and practices of the community have to be judged by the subjective belief of the community and the court is bound to accept their belief.
Singhvi said while Article 25 clearly vests in an individual the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, such individual rights cannot be allowed to extend to an area which intrudes upon the mass of individual rights of all other adherents of that religion or denomination.
It was argued before the bench that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
TDB disagreed with the argument advanced by the Nair Service Society and certain temple organisations from Kerala that Article 26(b) of the Constitution was subject to 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. Article 25(2)(b) allows the state to enact laws for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
As per Article 26(b), a religious denomination has the fundamental right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The hearing in the matter will continue tomorrow.
Background
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority verdict, had lifted the ban that prevented women between the age of 10 and 50 from entering the Ayyappa shrine at Sabarimala and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
In November 2019, another five-judge bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a majority of 3:2, referred the issue of discrimination against women at various places of worship to a larger bench.
In May 2020, another bench held that its five-judge bench had the power to refer the questions of law to a larger bench for adjudication while exercising its limited power under review jurisdiction in the Sabarimala temple entry case.
Read More
