The observation came during the hearing of a constitutional challenge related to the earlier Supreme Court judgment permitting the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple. The bench is examining broader questions involving the intersection of faith, personal law, and fundamental rights.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Darius Khambata, representing Parsi petitioner Gulrukh M. Gupta, argued that an individual’s constitutional right to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion cannot be extinguished by the dictates of a religious community. He highlighted that under certain community practices, a Parsi woman marrying a non-Parsi man is considered to have lost her membership of the faith, as she is presumed to have adopted her husband’s religion.
Chief Justice Suryakant questioned whether it was appropriate for constitutional courts to engage extensively in disputes arising from religious rights, especially when such matters significantly contribute to judicial backlog.
Justice B. V. Nagaratna observed that the concept of marriage varies across personal laws in India, stating that under Hindu customs it is considered a sacrament, under Islamic law it is viewed as a contractual arrangement, while under the Special Marriage Act it is a civil contract governed by statutory law. She further questioned whether grievances arising from such unions should be addressed through civil courts instead of invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
Justice M. M. Sundresh added that the court was being asked to intervene in complex disputes involving individuals and religious denominations, raising the issue of whether such matters fall within the scope of constitutional judicial review. He emphasized the existing caseload pressure on the judiciary and suggested that civil litigation mechanisms may be more appropriate for resolving such conflicts.
The bench also includes Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, A. G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. The proceedings continue to explore the balance between fundamental rights and religious autonomy under constitutional interpretation.
The deliberations underscore a broader judicial concern over the increasing volume of faith-related litigation and its impact on the efficiency of constitutional adjudication in India’s highest court.
About The Author
Comment List