New Delhi

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday observed that if every religious practice is challenged before constitutional courts, it could lead to endless litigation and risk undermining the foundations of religion and civilisation in the country.

The remarks were made by a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant while hearing a batch of petitions concerning women’s entry into religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple, as well as broader questions relating to religious freedom and denominational rights under the Constitution.

The bench, which also included Justices B. V. Nagarathna, M. M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing arguments on the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution dealing with religious freedom.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for a group of reformist Dawoodi Bohras, argued that practices linked to secular or social conduct cannot automatically claim constitutional protection as religious matters. He submitted that practices affecting fundamental rights should remain open to judicial scrutiny even if they contain religious elements.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna expressed concern that frequent judicial intervention in religious matters could lead to a flood of petitions challenging various customs and rituals. She remarked that religion remains deeply woven into Indian society and civilisation, adding that courts must carefully consider the long-term implications of their rulings.

Justice Sundresh observed that unrestricted challenges to religious practices could create an unmanageable situation where every issue becomes a constitutional dispute. He questioned how far courts should intervene in a diverse and evolving society such as India.

Justice Nagarathna further said India’s civilisational identity rests upon its pluralism and diversity, with religion continuing to play a central role in social life. She noted that the court was grappling with difficult questions regarding the extent to which religious practices can be examined by constitutional courts and whether reform should emerge internally within religious communities or through state intervention.

Responding to the court’s observations, Ramachandran argued that India’s civilisational framework is ultimately governed by the Constitution and that practices contrary to constitutional values cannot continue merely in the name of tradition.

Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the Government of Kerala, submitted that constitutional protections are fundamentally centred on the rights of individuals and that institutions derive their rights from individuals rather than the other way around.

He further argued that under the Constitution, no person’s rights are inherently superior to another’s. According to Gupta, when courts examine whether a practice qualifies as an “essential religious practice,” they rely on evidence presented by members of the concerned faith and do not impose their own theological interpretations.

Justice Bagchi added that the constitutional framework does not place one person’s conscience above another’s.

READ MORE: West Bengal Polls: BJP makes dent in TMC stronghold of Muslim-majority districts

The hearing remained inconclusive and is scheduled to continue next week.