BackLAW
The stakes are high in the Sabarimala matter
The article discusses the Supreme Court's Sabarimala reference and the contested role of constitutional morality in interpreting religious rights. It situates the case within a longer history of how courts balance essential religious practices and fundamental rights, highlighting tensions with majoritarian sentiment.
Why It Matters
It signals how future rulings could shape religious freedom jurisprudence across faiths by testing the limits of judicial intervention through constitutional morality and the ERP framework.
Timeline
5 Events
April 22, 2026 – Sabarimala hearing context in the article
April 22, 2026
The article reports that the Supreme Court is hearing the Sabarimala reference, with discussion centered on constitutional morality, ERP, and the potential framework for testing religious practices across faiths.
Ismail Farooqi v. Union of India (1994) – essential religious practices and ERP
1994
Ismail Farooqi v. Union of India addressed the essential religious practices (ERP) concept; the article notes the majority view that not all religious practices, such as mosque practices, are deemed essential to Islam.
Emergency period judgments and Justice HR Khanna (1977) – consequences for dissenting judgments
1977
The article references Justice HR Khanna's experience during the Emergency for his refusal to dilute constitutional promises, illustrating cost to judicial independence during that period.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (April 24, 1973) – fundamental structure and constitutional limits
April 24, 1973
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established important limits on parliamentary power within the basic structure doctrine; the article notes the Justices who defended constitutional limits and faced professional consequences for their stance.
Narasu Appa Mali v. State of Mysore (1952) – personal laws and fundamental rights
1952
Narasu Appa Mali v. State of Mysore held that personal laws are not subject to fundamental rights review, a point cited in discussions of how religious practices are tested against constitutional rights.