Home Kerala “Not Easy to Disprove Faith of Millions”: Supreme Court’s Key Observation in Sabarimala Case
KeralaLegal News

“Not Easy to Disprove Faith of Millions”: Supreme Court’s Key Observation in Sabarimala Case

Supreme Court observes that it is difficult to disprove the faith of millions while hearing Sabarimala case on religious traditions and rights.

Share
Sabarimala Case, Supreme Court, Religious Rights, Women Entry Temple, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, India Law News
Share

Supreme Court’s Crucial Observation

The Supreme Court of India has made a significant observation while hearing the Sabarimala temple case, stating that it is “not easy to disprove the faith of millions.”

A 9-judge Constitution Bench is currently examining complex constitutional questions related to religious traditions and fundamental rights.

Debate Over Religious Traditions

The bench is considering multiple issues arising from the controversy over women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple.

One of the key questions is whether individuals who are not followers of a particular religion or sect can challenge its traditions in court.

Singhvi Argues Against Third-Party Challenges

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Travancore Devaswom Board, argued that courts should exercise strict caution while entertaining public interest litigations in religious matters.

He emphasized that:

Courts should not decide on religious traditions without hearing those who follow them.

He further stated that different sects within a religion may have their own customs, which should not be easily interfered with.

Court Raises Hypothetical Scenario

During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised a hypothetical question—whether courts should intervene if a religious leader encourages harmful practices like mass suicide.

Singhvi responded that such extreme situations would justify judicial intervention in public interest.

Judges Highlight Complexity

Justice B V Nagarathna observed that petitions challenging religious traditions by non-adherents may not always be maintainable.

Meanwhile, Justice M M Sundaresh questioned how courts can rule on matters affecting millions without hearing them.

Faith vs Fundamental Rights

The case highlights the ongoing debate between faith and constitutional rights, with the court acknowledging the sensitivity and complexity involved in adjudicating such issues.

The Constitution Bench is expected to continue hearing the matter in the coming days.

Share
Written by
Indra Shiva - Editor in Chief

Indra Shiva is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of IMN India, a Delhi-based national digital news media network. He oversees editorial strategy, breaking news coverage, and content standards across the platform. Alongside his media venture, he is the Founder and CEO of Luxury Shukra, a premium women’s ethnic wear brand. His work focuses on delivering timely, accurate, and trustworthy news content, contributing to the growth of independent digital journalism in India.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles
Umar Khalid bail rejected, Supreme Court Delhi riots case, Umar Khalid review petition dismissed, Delhi riots conspiracy case update, UAPA case Umar Khalid
CrimeLegal News

SETBACK for Umar Khalid: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Review Plea in Delhi Riots Case

The Supreme Court of India dismisses Umar Khalid’s review petition against bail...

Kejriwal liquor policy case, Justice Sharma recusal plea, Delhi High Court news, judicial independence India, CBI vs Kejriwal case
DelhiLegal News

Delhi Liquor Policy Case: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Rejects Kejriwal’s Recusal Plea

Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refuses to recuse from Kejriwal’s...