The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday observed that religion cannot be “hollowed out” in the name of social welfare or reform, while hearing review petitions against its verdict permitting entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Temple.

A nine-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant is currently examining larger constitutional questions arising from the Sabarimala issue, particularly the balance between the right to religious freedom and the scope of social reform.

The Court underscored that determining the beliefs of millions as “incorrect” remains one of the most complex challenges before it.

The controversy stems from the Court’s 2018 judgment, delivered by a Constitution Bench headed by then CJI Dipak Misra, which held that women of all ages must be allowed entry into the temple. The Bench had ruled that exclusion based on age could not qualify as an essential religious practice and likened the restriction to a form of untouchability.

During the ongoing hearing, Justice MM Sundresh questioned whether such issues could be adjudicated without hearing the voices of the large number of devotees affected. Justice BV Nagarathna also cautioned against entertaining public interest litigations filed by “interlopers,” reiterating that courts must avoid diluting core aspects of a religion in the name of reform.

Appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for a balanced interpretation of constitutional provisions. He highlighted the interplay between Articles 25 and 26, noting that while individuals have the right to freely practice religion, religious denominations also have autonomy in managing their internal affairs. He stressed that any reform must preserve the fundamental identity of a religion.

Singhvi further questioned the “essential religious practices” doctrine, arguing that it effectively allows courts to determine what constitutes the core of a religion. According to him, such assessments should rest with the community itself, and practices sincerely held as part of faith deserve constitutional protection, subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, during the exchange, raised whether essential practices could be altered through legislation. The Bench also examined the scope of “social reform” under Article 25(2)(b), with Justice Sundresh noting its role in addressing social evils.

The matter will continue to be heard on Thursday.

For centuries, women between the ages of 10 and 50 were traditionally barred from entering the Sabarimala shrine, where Lord Ayyappa is worshipped as a celibate deity. The temple authorities have maintained that the practice is rooted in religious belief and not discrimination, urging the Court to refrain from intervening in matters of faith.