Supreme Court's Challenge: Constitution vs. Religious Practices at Sabarimala

The Supreme Court questioned whether constitutional rights can support a believer barred from touching the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple deity. The inquiry followed the chief priest's notion that worship must align with deity characteristics. The nine-judge Constitution bench examines discrimination against women in religious sites like Sabarimala Temple, focusing on freedom of religion.

The bench includes Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and others. Representing the 'thantri', advocate V Giri maintained temple ceremonies are integral to religion, forming an essential practice for believers. Giri argued such practices are part of worship rights under religion or denomination.

Justice Amanullah questioned restrictions based on birth preventing temple access. Giri contended bans would be addressed by law or state intervention. The Sabarimala deity's 'Naishtika Brahmachari' status defines its religious character and impacts entry-age debates. The Supreme Court's prior notable rulings on women's Sabarimala entry remain pertinent as hearings persist.