The Supreme Court of India has said it has the power to examine religious practices and decide if they involve superstition.

The Court also made it clear that it will not accept the argument that the legislature has the “last word” in such matters.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant made these observations while hearing the Sabarimala case, which challenges the ban on women aged 10–50 entering the temple.

The Court said it can decide whether a practice is superstitious. It added that while the legislature may later act on such findings, no one can argue in court that only the legislature has the final authority.

The Bench gave examples like witchcraft, cannibalism, and sati to explain that some practices, even if claimed to be religious, may still be unacceptable.

This came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that courts should not decide what is superstition. He said judges are experts in law, not religion, and pointed out that beliefs can vary across different regions and cultures in India.

However, the judges questioned this argument. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said the issue cannot be seen in such a simple way. Justice Joymalya Bagchi added that if a harmful practice like witchcraft is claimed as religious and the law is silent, the Court can still step in using constitutional powers.

Mehta responded that the Court can intervene on grounds like public order, morality, and health—but not just because something is called superstition. Justice Bagchi replied that courts often test arguments by taking them to their extreme limits.

Justice M M Sundresh also said the government cannot completely deny the Court’s power to review such matters. He noted that if a practice clearly violates constitutional values, like sati, the Court can intervene.

Justice B V Nagarathna highlighted that courts must examine whether a practice is an “essential religious practice” based on that religion’s own philosophy, while still keeping public order and morality in mind.

Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed that the Court cannot act as a religious expert. However, he said that if a practice shocks the conscience—like human sacrifice or cannibalism—the Court may not need detailed analysis to step in. The Court is currently examining how far its power of judicial review extends in such cases.

Meanwhile, the government argued that the Sabarimala restriction is not about discrimination against women. It said the practice is linked to the nature of Lord Ayyappa as an eternal celibate and should be respected as part of religious belief.