SC hearing on Sabarimala women entry LIVE: A debate on how to differentiate between superstition and religious practice

The case consists of a series of writ petitions and review petitions based on a 2018 order allowing women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala.

In November 2019, a majority verdict of the five-judge Constitution Bench led by the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had initially sent the Sabarimala review and referred the petitions to a seven-judge Bench.

However, the 2019 majority judgment did not limit the references to the Sabarimala case only. He took a broader perspective on legal questions touching religious matters, including whether constitutional protection should be given to religious practices deemed fundamental and the scope of judicial intervention in such matters.

The Gogoi Bench consolidated its consideration of the Sabarimala case with other pending petitions on other faiths, but raised similar legal questions. These include the right of Muslim women to enter mosques; the right of Parsi women who marry outside their faith to enter religious places of worship and the issue of female circumcision practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra community.