Person Not Belonging To Religion Cannot Normally Question Practice Of That Religion By Filing PIL: Kerala Submits In Sabarimala Case

The State of Kerala has recently filed its written submission in the Sabarimala review and submits that a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group has sufficient interest in questioning a practice of that religious group or religious denomination by way of a public interest litigation.

It also said that any judicial interference into long-standing religious practices must only occur after wide-ranging consultations with eminent religious scholars and reputed social reformers of that specific faith.

The Supreme Court has recently passed an order for commencing the 9-judge bench for the hearing of the issues referred in the Sabarimala review from April 7, 2026.

As regards to the question of whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL, the State says, "As stated above, the essentiality of a religious practice has to be primarily tested with regard to the tenets of that religion. it may not be a matter susceptible to adjudication by scales of it being appealing to reason or sentiment, but should be as to whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion. In deciding the question as to whether a given religious practice is an integral part of the religion or not, the test normally should be as to whether it is regarded as such by the community following the religion or not. In the aforementioned circumstances, it may not normally be held that a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group has sufficient interest in questioning a practice of that religious group or religious denomination by way of a public interest litigation, in relaxation of the principles of locus."

The State submits by saying that in the matter of the gravest Human Rights violation being conducted in the name of religious practice, it can be said that a person not belonging to that religious denomination or religious group has sufficient interest to question such a 'religious practice'

"The rule of locus standi was relaxed, by way of public interest litigations, to enable public minded citizens and organisations to move the court and act for a general interest. it is no more res integra that in a public interest litigation, undertaken for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty and for protecting social collective diffused rights and interests, any citizen who is acting bonafide and who has sufficient interest has to be accorded standing. it is also settled as to what is sufficient interest to give standing to a member of the public would have to be determined by the court in each individual case. It is also settled that a member of public having no personal gain or oblique motive can approach the court for enforcement of constitution or legal rights of socially or economically disadvantaged persons. It cannot be stated as a rule that the followers of a religion or practitioners of a religious practice will always be socially disadvantaged", it contends.

However, it clarifies that in the matter of the gravest Human Rights violation being conducted in the name of religious practice, it can be said that a person not belonging to that religious denomination or religious group has sufficient interest to question such a 'religious practice'.

For the issue of the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25, the State submits, "The State of Kerala is of the considered opinion that what is to be considered by the Court, in the matter of a Judicial review with regard to Article 25, should not be as to whether a particular religious practice or belief appeals to reason or sentiment, but should be as to whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion. Therefore, it would be expedient in the interests of justice that, as stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit dated 13.11.2007, inter alia, for and on behalf of the State of Kerala, any judicial review in to any religious practice followed for so many years connected with the belief and values accepted by the people must be after wide consultation with and after soliciting views of eminent religious scholars and reputed social reformers of that religion. A decision in this regard should be rendered by the court after assessing the opinions of social reformers and religious scholars as an impartial authority. Previous experience in the matter of Sabarimala shrine and the response of devotees including women devotees would support the above submission."

The State has previously, vide its counter affidavit, submitted, "Thus, Government is of the opinion that nobody should be prohibited from their right to worship, but considering the fact that the matter of entry to Sabarimala is a practice followed for so many years and connected with the belief and values accepted by the people and since there is a binding High Court judgment in this regard, Government felt that this Hon’ble Court may be requested to appoint an appropriate commission consisting of eminent scholars with authentic knowledge in Hinduism and reputed and uncorrupt social reformers to submit suggestions/views on the issue whether it is open to all women, irrespective of their age to enter the temple and make worship."

Later, an additional affidavit was also filed on behalf of the State of Kerala stating, inter alia, to the effect that the Writ Petition, seeking to change the beliefs and customs of devotees, was wholly misplaced and liable to be dismissed.

The State highlights that a true democracy is measured by the ability of even "insignificant minorities" to find their identity and protect rituals, ceremonies, and modes of worship that are integral to their faith. Kerala contends that because religious practices are rooted in the tenets of the faith and the community's perception, an outsider—someone not belonging to that specific denomination—may not typically have "sufficient interest" or locus standi to challenge those practices.

As regards the issues of the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, the State submitted, "The right guaranteed under Article 25 is an individual right, which, as no other fundamental right is, can be termed to be absolute. It cannot encroach upon the similar right of another person...The restrictions which may be imposed by the State upon right guaranteed by Article 25 are those imposed on the grounds of (i) public order, morality and health; (ii) other provisions of Part III of the Constitution; (iii) regulating non-religious activity associated with religious practice; (iv) social welfare and reform; (v) throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of Hindus. It is no more res integra that the principle that has to be borne in mind, while interpreting Article 25, is to the effect that the real test of a true democracy is the ability of even an insignificant minority to find its identity under the country’s Constitution... The religious freedom guaranteed by Article 25 extends to acts done in furtherance of religion and contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship, which are integral part of the religion."

While Article 25 guarantees individual freedom, the State clarifies that religious denominations under Article 26 cannot use their autonomy to bypass state laws intended for social welfare, reform, or the opening of public Hindu institutions to all classes.

The State of Kerala also submits its arguments regarding the issue of whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL. It says that it cannot be stated as a rule that the followers of a religion or practitioners of a religious practice will always be socially disadvantaged.

"As stated above, the essentiality of a religious practice has to be primarily tested with regard to the tenets of that religion. it may not be a matter susceptible to adjudication by scales of it being appealing to reason or sentiment, but should be as to whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion. In deciding the question as to whether a given religious practice is an integral part of the religion or not, the test normally should be as to whether it is regarded as such by the community following the religion or not. In the aforementioned circumstances, it may not normally be held that a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group has sufficient interest in questioning a practice of that religious group or religious denomination by way of a public interest litigation, in relaxation of the principles of locus", it submits.

The State submits that Sections of Hindus" must be interpreted in its widest possible sense. It includes every internal classification of the faith, such as: Divisions and Sub-divisions, Castes and Sub-castes and Sects and Denominations.

The submission relies on the Constituent Assembly Debates to clarify the intent behind Draft Article 19 (now Article 25). Member G. Durgabai successfully moved to expand the language to ensure no "class" was left behind. It says Draft Article 19, which later became Article 25, originally had the words “…….any class or section of Hindus. The Learned Member G.Durgabai spoke thus: “Now, with regard to the Hindu religious institutions of a public character, we are all aware that there are various classes of these institutions, such as temples, religious maths, and educational institutions or Pathasalas conducted by these institutions, or attached to these institutions. So far as temples are concerned, I am sure that all of us are aware that almost all of the provinces, including some States, have already passed law throwing open temples to all classes or sections of Hindus. But I am equally sure that some distinction does still exist in regard to the other forms of religious institutions, such as Pathasalas, educational institutions and others managed or conducted by these religious institutions. As I have already explained, my object is to enlarge the scope of this clause, and to include within it all classes and sections of Hindus. If my amendment is accepted, then that object will be fulfilled. As I have already explained, there should not be any distinction between one class and another class of Hindus.”

The submission states that the above article was introduced to the Constitution primarily to enable the States to make laws permitting access to Hindu religious institutions to those depressed castes and communities which were deprived of such entry. However, the said clause includes within it all classes and sections of Hindus, including women.

Cause Title: Kantaru Rejeevaru Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association; Sabarimala Custom Protection Forum Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association [R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P. (C) No. 373/2006]