Appearing for the President of VHP Kerala and General Secretary of the Sabarimala Karma Samiti, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram argued that while the Constitution seeks to achieve gender equality in areas like employment and social life, this principle does not extend to access to places of worship or the exercise of religious freedom, even under the Directive Principles.

“the aim is to achieve gender equality in employement and in other matters, but access to places of worship or freedom of religious doesn’t include the concept of gender equality, even in the directive principles.”

He submitted that temples are fundamentally “a board of the deity”, where worship is shaped by the specific form and tradition associated with that deity, and therefore religious practices must be understood within that framework.

“A temple is really a board of a particular deity. It is where a deity in the form we want to worship that deity is. For example, Lord Ayyappa has various forms and each temple worships that deity in that form, treating it as a home of the deity. For example, guruvayoor, while it is Krishna, it is krishna the child. The entire religious feeling is towards the deity in that form.”

Rejecting the essential religious practices doctrine, Mr Sundaram contended that once a practice is religious and does not harm others, courts should not scrutinize its “essentiality,” as this would draw courts into ecclesiastical determinations they claim to avoid. Instead, he proposed that the correct inquiry should be whether a practice is part of a form of worship, grounded in scripture, long-standing custom, or accepted modes of devotion.

“The moment we say essential religious practice, it becomes a question of fact, and that is left to the courts to decide on an ecclesiastical matter which we say we will not do…what is relevant is the concept of whether it is in a form of religious worship that is all. Whether its a form is found either in the shastras or through long custom or through long usage, or in a manner in which a group of people want to worship the deity”

He emphasized that Articles 25 and 26 must be read together, with denominational rights operating within the broader framework of religious freedom, but not subject to external equality standards in matters of worship.

He argued that under Article 25(2)(b), the phrase “classes and sections” must be understood narrowly to mean groups that are similarly situated within the religion, and does not extend to gender.

“My submission is classes and sections doesn’t include gender… classes would mean all those similarly placed.”

He submitted that the State’s power to “throw open” temples is not absolute, but limited to advancing social reform within such classes, and cannot be used to override established religious practices purely on grounds of gender equality.

To this Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah pointed out a possible contradiction, noting that if temples are to be “thrown open” for social reform, restricting that openness to only certain groups may defeat the purpose:

“The fundamental contradiction would be… throwing open for a limited section also, but here throwing open is all classes and sections.”

Mr Sundaram, however, reiterated that the constitutional language does not support reading gender into “classes and sections,” and religious access cannot be recast solely through the lens of equality jurisprudence.