Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated November 14, 2019, disposed of a batch of review petitions and connected matters arising from the earlier judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (the Sabarimala temple entry case). The court, comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra, noted that the review petitions sought to reopen the debate on what constitutes essential religious practices and the interplay between religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other fundamental rights. The court observed that similar issues were pending in other cases concerning entry of Muslim women into mosques, Parsi women married to non-Parsis into fire temples, and the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community. The court identified several seminal constitutional questions requiring authoritative determination by a larger bench of not less than seven judges, including: the interplay between Articles 25, 26, and 14; the sweep of 'public order, morality and health' in Article 25(1); the meaning of 'constitutional morality'; the extent of judicial inquiry into essential religious practices; the interpretation of 'sections of Hindus' in Article 25(2)(b); whether essential religious practices are protected under Article 26; and the permissible scope of PILs challenging religious practices by non-believers. The court noted an apparent conflict between the Seven-Judge bench in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt), which held that essential religious practices should be determined by the denomination itself, and the Five-Judge bench in Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, which carved out a role for courts to exclude secular practices or superstitious beliefs. The court directed that all review petitions and connected writ petitions remain pending until the larger bench determines the questions indicated. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Religious Freedom - Essential Religious Practices - Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India - The court considered whether the determination of essential religious practices should be left to the religious denomination itself or subject to judicial scrutiny, noting an apparent conflict between the Seven-Judge bench in Shirur Mutt and the Five-Judge bench in Durgah Committee. Held that this conflict requires resolution by a larger bench (Paras 7-9).
B) Constitutional Law - Public Order, Morality and Health - Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India - The court identified the need to delineate the contours of the expression 'morality' or 'constitutional morality' occurring in Article 25(1), as it has not been defined in the Constitution, to prevent subjectivity. Held that this issue requires consideration by a larger bench (Para 5(iii)).
C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - PIL in Religious Matters - Articles 25, 26, 32, 226 of the Constitution of India - The court questioned the permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs challenging religious practices of a denomination or section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to such denomination. Held that courts should tread cautiously in such matters (Paras 5(vii), 6).
D) Constitutional Law - Sections of Hindus - Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution of India - The court identified the need to interpret the meaning of the expression 'sections of Hindus' appearing in Article 25(2)(b). Held that this issue requires authoritative determination by a larger bench (Para 5(v)).
E) Constitutional Law - Essential Religious Practices - Article 26 of the Constitution of India - The court considered whether essential religious practices of a religious denomination or a section thereof are afforded constitutional protection under Article 26. Held that this issue requires consideration by a larger bench (Para 5(vi)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the issues arising in review petitions and connected matters regarding the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 and other provisions of Part III, particularly Article 14, and the determination of essential religious practices require authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench of not less than seven judges.
Final Decision
The court directed that the review petitions and connected writ petitions remain pending until the determination of the questions indicated in the judgment by a Larger Bench as may be constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. The court identified several constitutional questions requiring authoritative pronouncement by a bench of not less than seven judges.
Law Points
- Essential religious practices
- Religious freedom
- Articles 25 and 26
- Public order morality and health
- Constitutional morality
- Judicial review of religious practices
- Sections of Hindus
- PIL in religious matters
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (11) 92
Review Petition (Civil) No. 3358/2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373/2006 and connected matters
Ranjan Gogoi, A.M. Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra
Indian Young Lawyers Association through its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petitions and connected writ petitions arising from the judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala temple entry case) concerning the constitutional validity of restrictions on entry of women into the Sabarimala temple.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought review of the judgment and/or fresh writ petitions to challenge the judgment, arguing that the restriction on entry of women is an essential religious practice protected under Articles 25 and 26.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the judgment under review incorrectly determined what constitutes essential religious practices and infringed upon the rights of the religious denomination to manage its own affairs.
Previous Decisions
The judgment under review was rendered by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373/2006 (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala), which held that the practice of excluding women of a certain age group from the Sabarimala temple was not an essential religious practice and violated Article 14.
Issues
Whether the determination of essential religious practices should be left to the religious denomination or subject to judicial scrutiny.
What is the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 and other provisions of Part III, particularly Article 14.
What is the sweep of 'public order, morality and health' in Article 25(1).
What is the meaning of 'constitutional morality'.
What is the meaning of 'sections of Hindus' in Article 25(2)(b).
Whether essential religious practices of a denomination or section thereof are protected under Article 26.
What is the permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs challenging religious practices by non-believers.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that religion is a means to express faith, and what is perceived as essential practice for a particular deity by a section of a religious group may not be so perceived by another section; both sections have a right to freely profess, practise and propagate their beliefs under Article 25, even if they do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
The petitioners contended that as long as the practice is not opposed to public order, morality and health or other provisions of Part III, the section is free to profess, practise and propagate it as integral part of their religion.
The petitioners submitted that the individual right to worship cannot outweigh the rights of the section to manage its own affairs of religion.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that there is an apparent conflict between the Seven-Judge bench in Shirur Mutt (which held that essential religious practices should be determined by the denomination itself) and the Five-Judge bench in Durgah Committee (which carved out a role for courts to exclude secular practices or superstitious beliefs), requiring resolution by a larger bench. The court also identified several seminal constitutional questions regarding the interplay between Articles 25, 26, and 14, the meaning of 'public order, morality and health', 'constitutional morality', 'sections of Hindus', and the scope of PILs in religious matters, which require authoritative determination by a larger bench.
Judgment Excerpts
It is time that this Court should evolve a judicial policy befitting to its plenary powers to do substantial and complete justice and for an authoritative enunciation of the constitutional principles by a larger bench of not less than seven judges.
The decision of a larger bench would put at rest recurring issues touching upon the rights flowing from Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
In this context, the decision of the Seven Judges bench of this Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt) holding that what are essential religious practices of a particular religious denomination should be left to be determined by the denomination itself and the subsequent view of a Five Judges bench in Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. carving out a role for the court in this regard to exclude what the courts determine to be secular practices or superstitious beliefs seem to be in apparent conflict requiring consideration by a larger Bench.
Procedural History
The original writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 373/2006) was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging the practice of excluding women of a certain age group from the Sabarimala temple. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court allowed the petition, holding the practice unconstitutional. Subsequently, several review petitions and fresh writ petitions were filed challenging that judgment. The present judgment disposes of these review petitions and connected matters by referring the issues to a larger bench.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 25, Article 25(1), Article 25(2)(b), Article 26, Article 145(3), Article 226, Article 32
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Order XLVII
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9
- Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965:
