Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the review petitioner, continued his submissions on the 7th day of hearing into the Sabarimala reference before the 9 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
He submitted that courts are not barred from examining questions of religion and are fully empowered to inquire into what constitutes a religion, identify its basic tenets, and assess how such faith is expressed in practice. However, he drew a clear constitutional boundary, emphasising that the inner faith of a worshiper, being a private matter between the individual and the divine, lies beyond the scope of judicial interference.
“The faith of the worshiper, which is a private matter between the worshiper and the maker, is not the area where the court interferes.”
He argued that judicial review is not barred in matters of religion, except in the narrow sphere of personal faith.
“I am urging that nothing is non-justiciable; the only area of non-justiciability is the devotee’s faith in a certain philosophy or towards a certain deity. it is completely different from a secular scrutiny. So if we stay within the constitutional boundaries of articles 25 and 26, then I say, my lords are not precluded in any way or by any manner to inquire and determine what the religion is, what are its basic tenets, and how is this religious faith asserted.”
Subramanium argued that while Article 25(1) guarantees individual freedom in matters of religion, once a person adopts a particular creed or philosophy and becomes part of a denomination, their rights are governed by Article 26(b). In such a setting: “you cannot actually attempt to change the doctrine of that philosophy while entering as a member of a denomination. That is not expected because you are an adherent of the denomination.”
He argued that the faith of a worshiper, being a private relationship between the individual and the maker, cannot be an area where courts intervene. He emphasised that while courts may examine the external aspects of religion, including practices and institutional structures, the inner realm of belief, conscience, and spiritual experience remains non-justiciable.
Mr Subramanium explained that religion encompasses multiple dimensions, philosophy, practice, worship, and belief, but not all of these are open to judicial review. The core of faith lies in personal conviction, which varies from individual to individual and cannot be subjected to legal standards or external validation.
He further argued that judicial tools like the “essential religious practices” test should be used cautiously and only to filter out claims falsely presented as religious, not to intrude upon genuine expressions of belief. The doctrine, he suggested, is meant to guard against misuse, not to narrow the scope of constitutional protection.
The Bench engaged with this position during the hearing. Questions were raised on whether religion could be understood as a “spiritual experience” and how to distinguish religious from secular activities. Subramanium responded by submitting a careful distinction: while secular elements can be separated and examined, the inner experience of faith must remain untouched.