Overview
- - The nine-judge bench, which sat Wednesday and Thursday, affirmed that courts may call a practice “superstition” and review it for public order, health, or morality.
- - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that only legislatures should reform such customs under Article 25(2)(b) and urged the court to reject “constitutional morality” as a legal test.
- - Judges pressed the issue of standing, asking how non‑devotees could challenge Sabarimala’s custom and whether the 2006 PIL by the Indian Young Lawyers Association was maintainable.
- - The bench cautioned that endorsing sect‑based entry rules in temples and mutts could harm Hinduism and split communities.
- - The hearings resume April 14, with seven referred questions in play that could redefine access to places of worship and who can bring challenges to internal religious practices.