Supreme Court On Religious Practice: ‘No religion can be hollowed out in the name of social welfare or reform’, important comment of the Supreme Court

New Delhi. A constitution bench of 9 judges in the Supreme Court is hearing the Sabarimala case. The Supreme Court bench said an important thing during the hearing on Wednesday. The court said that in the name of welfare and improvement of the society, no religion can be hollowed out nor its essential practices can be taken away. During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant said that the most difficult thing for the court is to decide how to declare the beliefs of lakhs of people wrong or misleading.

At the same time, Justice MM Sundaresh, who was part of the bench, asked whether the court can give its verdict on such questions without hearing the views of lakhs of people. Justice BV Nagarathna, member of the bench, said that such PIL should not be considered unless the direct interest of the person filing it is involved. He said that no religion can be hollowed out in the name of social welfare or reform. During the hearing, Justice Jaimalya Bagchi, a member of the Constitution Bench, raised the question whether the essential practices of any religion cannot be legally changed?

In this case, Travancore Devoswam Board’s lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that there is a relation between Clause B of Section 2 of Article 25 and Clause B of Article 26. He appealed that both should be interpreted in a balanced manner. Article 25 gives religious freedom and Article 26 gives freedom to religious institutions to manage themselves. At the same time, Article 25(2)(b) allows the government to prepare laws for social reform and allows all sections of the society to visit religious places. Singhvi said that while making the law, it should be decided that the basic identity of the religion should be maintained. Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that it is not the job of the court to decide which religious practices are necessary and which are not.