In constitutional law, courts must balance the protection of religious freedom under Article 25(1) with the state's power to reform social practices under Article 25(2)(b), recognizing that social rules often get sanctified as religious practices, requiring case-by-case analysis to determine what constitutes essential religious practices versus social customs that can be reformed.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
Inside the courtroom | Sabarimala Reference Day 14Added:
Welcome to Inside the Court Room by LiveLaw, a new segment where you get the fastest account of what happened in India's most important hearings beyond the headlines and into the arguments themselves. LiveLaw has reporters in courtrooms across the country tracking hearings as they happen, verifying what was said, and getting to you as soon as the court rises. So, for today, day 14 of the Sabarimala hearings before nine-judge Constitutional Bench, the arguments continued to move through some of the most layered Constitutional territory this bench has encountered.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta for the state of Kerala pressed on the essential religious practices test. And his core submission was that the court should not look for a single formula. Drawing from the Adi Shiva judgment, he argued that the court's role as a Constitutional arbiter requires it to make these difficult determinations case by case.
He illustrated using the Tandav dance case, where the court held that performing the dance was an essential religious practice, but performing it in a public procession was not. The essential practice and the manner of its performance are two completely different things. On Article 25(2)(b), which allows the state to legislate for social welfare and reform and opening of religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus, Jaideep Gupta made a point here that cut to the heart of the case. Social rules have historically been sanctified by being repackaged as religious practice. If you want to reform those social rules, you will inevitably have to touch religious practices. And critically, he said one of the most important aspects of such reform is throwing open Hindu temples of public character. Justice Nagarathna pushed back here, saying reform cannot hollow out what Article 25(1) itself protects, that is the freedom to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde then argued from a rationalist perspective. Appearing for the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, he prefaced his arguments by saying that there are people who look at everything, including religion, through the filter of reason. He situated the Constitutional provisions in their historical moment, a country that had just suffered partition, emerging from imperialism, and dealing with deep internal social struggles. His argument on denominational rights was sharp, as he argued that a denomination's right to manage its own affairs can even be claimed against the orthodoxy of its own religion. He also noted that rationalist values are woven into the constitution itself. In the preamble, Article 25 one's protection of conscience, Article 51 A H, that is the fundamental duty to develop the scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform, and Article 28 two. Hegde closed with a detour to Udupi, where a lower caste devotee forbidden from entering the temple stood outside and sang bhajans.
And the idol, according to tradition, turned to face him. It is not the god which discriminate, but man does. He said, "The Lord doesn't turn away half a believer." Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy then argued that the constitution was designed not just to accommodate, but to actively reform Hinduism. Pointing to Articles 15 two, 15 three, and 15 clause four as the constitutional framework for eradicating caste within the religion. She opened with Dr. Ambedkar, noting that in 1945, he was denied entry to the Puri temple on grounds of caste, while Lord Mountbatten, who accompanied him, was given a red carpet welcome. When a society is in a transitory stage, pulled between the past and the future, the test can be applied is no other than the test of one's conscience, even if the majority does not. For the full detailed report on day 14 and all the previous days' hearings, head over to livelaw.in.
This has been inside the courtroom.
We'll see you next whenever there is an important hearing you need to know about.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02











