Sabarimala reference hearing concludes; Supreme Court reserves judgment

📌 Summary:

• A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, reserved its judgment in the Sabarimala review hearing after 16 days of marathon arguments

• The Court held that constitutional courts cannot give up their duty to judicially review religious practices to examine if they violate fundamental liberties

• However, it observed that the primary obligation to usher in reform and ensure social welfare lies with the legislature

• The CJI remarked the judiciary could neither remain a passive observer nor an overzealous reformer

• Amicus curiae K. Parameshwar argued that the validity of religious rights should not be judged on factors such as rationality, and that the term "religious denomination" must be given a broader meaning

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 — judicial review of religious practices, the balance between fundamental rights (Articles 25-26) and social reform, and the roles of the judiciary versus the legislature

📝 Prelims Facts:

• The Sabarimala review is being heard by a nine-judge Constitution Bench

• The Bench is headed by CJI Surya Kant

• Articles 25 and 26 deal with freedom of religion and the rights of religious denominations

🔑 Key Term: Religious denomination — a collective of individuals with a common faith, organisation and distinctive name, entitled under Article 26 to manage its own religious affairs