The Kerala government has told the Supreme Court that the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 is a personal right, but it is not absolute and cannot override the rights of others.

The case relates to the 2018 verdict that allowed women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala Temple, a shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.

IN this matter, the court has given three days each to both sides—those supporting the traditional restriction on women aged 10–50 entering the temple, and those opposing it.

Just before the hearing, the Kerala government sought permission to present its arguments alongside those defending the temple traditions, requesting one hour to put forward its stand.

In its written submissions, the State clarified that Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to practice and propagate religion, but this freedom is subject to limitations such as public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.

The government emphasized that a true democracy protects even the smallest minority, ensuring that every group finds recognition under the Constitution. It added that religious freedom includes rituals, ceremonies, and modes of worship that are essential to a religion. However, such practices cannot violate the rights of other individuals.

Explaining the relationship between Articles 25 and 26, the State said that while Article 25 protects individual religious rights, Article 26 deals with the rights of religious groups to manage their own affairs. However, these group rights are subject to laws aimed at social reform.

The government also stressed that the phrase “sections of Hindus” includes women and all castes, highlighting that constitutional provisions are meant to ensure access to temples for historically excluded communities.

On the issue of “morality,” the State argued that it should be understood as constitutional morality—based on principles like equality, non-discrimination, dignity, and the abolition of untouchability.

Regarding the role of courts, the government said judges should examine whether a belief is genuinely held, rather than whether it appears rational. At the same time, practices that are illegal, harmful, or against public policy should not be protected as essential religious practices.

It also noted that generally, non-followers should not challenge the practices of a religious group through public interest litigations. However, courts can step in if there is a serious violation of human rights.

The Supreme Court will now examine key constitutional questions around religious freedom while hearing these review petitions.

In its 2018 judgment, the Court had ruled that the ban on women was unconstitutional and violated Articles 14, 15, and 25. The Bench, led by former Chief Justice Dipak Misra, had observed that treating women as inferior goes against the Constitution.

However, Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, stating that courts should not apply tests of rationality to matters of faith.