Sabarimala case: Centre flags 'three gaps' in reading of religious freedom

New Delhi: The Supreme Court began hearing the Sabarimala review matter on Tuesday, with the Centre backing pleas to revisit the 2018 verdict that allowed entry of women of all age groups into the Kerala shrine. The court formally constituted a nine-judge bench to consider the review petitions filed against the 2018 verdict. 

Who all are there in the bench?

The bench is headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprise Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih Masih, Prasanna M Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalaya Bagchi. 

The judgment allowed women of all ages to enter the Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala. It will also discuss other related issues that raise important questions about religious freedom and constitutional rights.

Why did bench oppose to giving more time to petitioners?

The Supreme Court, while hearing the matter on Tuesday expressed strong reservation to grant additional time to petitioners in the Sabarimala review case, stressing adherence to the schedule.

An advocate, who was appearing for the original petitioner, informed the bench that the case had a "small history" spanning 20 years.

The Chief Justice Surya Kant said that the court would examine the background but made clear the hearings would proceed as planned. “We will review the history also,” he said.

The Chief Justice noted that parties were not adhering to the set timelines. “We will not grant time. There are urgent matters awaiting,” he said.

What did Solicitor General Tushar Mehta say?

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the Centre, told the court that "allowing entry (of women) would alter the very nature of worship here, undermining religious pluralism protected by the Constitution. Devotees, i.e., both men and women, have for centuries worshipped Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala in accordance with the temple's established traditions."

Mehta said that the outcome would shape the country’s functioning "for at least 30-40 years."

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said the court would be re-examining the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

In response, Chief Justice said that the court would ensure it had full clarity before reaching a conclusion.

Did the court talk about reviewing the 2018 verdict?

During the hearing, counsel on both sides debated whether the hearing should examine the review pleas or restrict itself to the legal issues framed earlier. To which, Chief Justice Surya Kant replied that the bench had set timelines after consultations with other judges.

What are the three gaps that Centre flagged?

Tushar Mehta, who is appearing for the Centre, flagged three key gaps in interpreting religious freedom in the 2018 verdict.

“I submit that three crucial aspects have not been noticed,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, told the court, listing constituent assembly debates, the breadth of religion in India, and its internal diversity.

During the hearing, Mehta also said that Indian religions are not monolithic. "Religions should not be treated as monolithic while interpreting constitutional protections on religious freedom." he said.

“The country is having very proud plurality,” Mehta said.

"Let’s not take Hinduism, Islam, Christianity as broad categories and decide what is ‘religion’ — there are sects and denominations," Mehta said.

What is religious freedom issues beyond Sabarimala?

In addition to the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court will also examine broader constitutional questions relating to the scope of religious freedom under Article 25. 

These include the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, the right of Parsi women to enter fire temples (Agiaries) and the Tower of Silence after interfaith marriages, the validity of practices of ostracism, and abolition of the practice of khatna (female genital mutilation or FGN) among Dawoodi Bohra community members.

What is the detailed hearing schedule?

Earlier, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant had set a detailed schedule for the hearing. The bench clarified that the admissibility of the case had been conclusively decided. Seven key legal questions had also been identified.

According to the schedule, arguments from the parties supporting the review petitions will be heard from April 7 to 9. Following this, arguments from the opposing parties will be presented from April 14 to 16. Counter arguments, if any, will be heard on April 21, and final arguments by the amicus curiae (friend of the court) are expected to be completed by April 22.

The Supreme Court had directed all parties to submit written submissions in advance and stressed strict adherence to deadlines, as Constitution Bench cases are of utmost importance.

On the eve of the hearing, a written submission filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board urged the Supreme Court to adopt a community-centric understanding of religion. The board argues that courts should refrain from reinterpreting faith-based practices and question the continued application of the doctrine of essential religious practices.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the apex court that the central government supports the review petitions.