Supreme Court's Jurisdiction Over Religious Practices: A Legal Debate

The Supreme Court asserts its jurisdiction to determine superstitious practices within religions, despite the Centre's view that such matters belong solely to legislative reform. The ongoing hearing considers the scope of religious freedom and discrimination against women, referencing the Sabarimala temple case and constitutional articles pertinent to such practices.

The Supreme Court emphasized its authority to adjudicate what constitutes superstition in religious practices, amid debates about the court's role versus legislative powers. A constitutional bench is reviewing petitions regarding religious discrimination, following the landmark Sabarimala temple decision.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that determining superstition exceeds the court's scholarly competence, suggesting legislative intervention under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. However, Justice Amanullah countered that the judiciary retains jurisdiction in such matters.

Judges debated the necessity of understanding religious practices in their own context, as Justice Nagarathna remarked on the need to apply religious philosophy, subject to health, morality, and public order. The hearing remains ongoing, with the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, and subsequent 2019 decision, framing the discussion.

(With inputs from agencies.)