SC hearing on Sabarimala women entry LIVE: Nine-judge Bench hears pleas on religious discrimination against women
Sabarimala review: Center tells SC that a rigid definition of ‘sect’ and ‘fundamental religious practices’ will squeeze plural and diverse Hinduism
The Union government told the Supreme Court that a straitjacket definition of what constitutes a ‘religious denomination’ or which religious practices are ‘essential’ would “compress” the inherently pluralistic nature of Hinduism, expressed through various sects, groups, spiritual lineages, regional traditions, faith, practices, rituals, traditions and beliefs.
The Center has made its position clear ahead of the first hearing of a batch of writ and review petitions linked to the Sabarimala temple case, which is scheduled to be heard by a nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant from April 7. The nine-judge Bench will also examine the larger question of the extent to which constitutional courts can deal with matters of fundamental faith in the backdrop of the Sabarimala case.
Written submissions from the Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, challenged the Supreme Court’s September 2018 order which held that devotees visiting the Sabarimala temple in Kerala were not a separate religious sect called ‘Ayyappans’ protected under Article 26 of the Constitution.
The five-judge Bench had rejected the idea that banning women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering temples was an ‘old custom’ of the religious sect, amounting to an ‘essential religious practice’ protected under Article 25.
Read more here
