JUDICIAL INTERFERENCES ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS: SABARIMALA DECISION AND ITS FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

Abstract

Hailed for its revolutionary stance on women's entry into the temple, the paper focuses on the fine balance between essential religious practises and universal tenets of public and constitutional morality. It does so by exploring the complex web of constitutional dynamics. The research explores the Indian top court's interpretation of the essential religious practise theory, drawing comparisons with the Sabarimala ruling. Examining the fine line that separates public morality from constitutional morality, it highlights the developing body of legal precedent regarding “non-discrimination” as defined by the Constitution. Additionally, the article makes the case that the Sabarimala ruling has broadened the application of Article 17, bringing the debate over untouchability to the forefront of judicial theory. This expansion empowers constitutional courts to issue criminal directives, fortifying the prohibition on untouchability and potentially dismantling various discriminatory practices. This extension strengthens the ban on untouchability and may lead to the abolition of other discriminatory practises by enabling constitutional courts to issue criminal directives.

The authors in this paper discussed how religious freedoms towards a particular gender being discriminated from centuries. Further, the research paper throws light on the role of judiciary in protecting constitutional rights of its citizens with reference to Sabarimala ruling and its impact on essential religious practises.