Sabarimala Reference | ‘Constitution makers envisaged the reform of Hinduism’: Respondents urge

ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2026, as the Sabarimala Reference hearings by a nine-judge Constitution Bench hit the fortnight mark with respect to the elongated nature of its hearings, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the Kerala government, continued with his submissions. Alongside him, Senior Advocates Vijay Hansaria, Sajnay Hegde, Meneka Guruswamy and Shadan Farasat also appeared to make their respective submissions. 

‘In case of conflict, English text of Constitution prevails over translation’: Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta

He resumed his submissions by referring to the case of the Ananda Margis, which dealt with the practice of carrying out processions comprising a Tandav dance. In 1979, in Kolkata TT, a notice under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was served to the practitioners on the apprehension of breach of peace. The Supreme Court in that case had recognised the performance dance as an intrinsic religious practice to the exclusion of the mandate to perform the same in public. Further on, he submitted that the parameter for ascertaining the religious practices must be through the lens of doctrines of such a religion instead of viewing it from a lens of judicial reasoning. Gupta also pressed unequivocally on the significance of restraint to be exercised by the courts in cases pertaining to religious practises as such cases are starkly different from a tax case or any other category of cases. 

Gupta, then, referred to the decision in Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972), which dealt with the hereditary appointment to the post of Archakas, wherein the Supreme Court abolished the practice which confined itself to only ‘hereditary transmissions’. He submitted that Seshammal does not deal with the law in an incorrect manner but instead the ‘legal proposition’ applicable in the same stands to be precise. On this Justice B.V. Nagarathna  observed that although “the process of appointment of Archakas is non-religious however, the qualification for the same is strictly religious’. 

On the interpretation of Article 25(2)(b), Gupta contemplated upon the usage of the term ‘social’ in a provision enshrining right to religion, submitting that it is the social rules which have at many times become the ‘religious practices’, thereby making it essential at times to entrench upon religious rights in order to usher reform. He further expounded upon the wording of Article 25(2)(b) itself which comprises the ‘throwing open of all Hindu institutions to all classes’ as a prime illustration entailing the concept of reform. 

To this, Justice Nagrathna pithily observed that social reform cannot be employed in a manner that hollows the very existence of religion. 

Justice Aravind Kumar deftly posed the question: “Could an intervention possibly lie under the guise of 'public nuisance’ if a temple closes its entrance 8-10 times a day?”.

On the question of what constitutes a religious institution of public character, Gupta argued that such a religious institution would be considered to be of a public character if ‘any Hindu can worship’ and would be considered to be a private nature only when a certain group of people are permitted to worship the same. However, he stressed that such questions need to be decided on a case to case basis. Referring to the Devaru judgement and mentioned that a " denomination's temple can have a public character’.

On the issue of interpreting the term ‘denomination’ in Article 26, he noted that whenever one is dealing with a scenario where a word is not defined, taking a look at the dictionary becomes the primary recourse. He further submitted that the translation of the Constitution in Hindi is bound to have the same meaning as that of the original English text of the Constitution, which is in accordance with Article 394A, introduced by the 58th Constitutional Amendment in 1987. Gupta also argued that even though the present case did not suffer from any such conflicts, in case of a conflict between the original text of the Constitution and the translated text, the former would prevail. 

Gupta noted that the terms ‘Religion’ and ‘Religious Denomination’ translated in Hindi as ‘Dharma’ and ‘Dhaarmik Saampradaayi’ and expanded that the correct method is to first identify the ‘denomination’ followed by the ‘section’ and not the other way round . 

As his submissions came to an end he cautioned the Court about the repercussions of holding the submissions of the opposite party as valid in its entirety as a direct passage and departure to the “dark days”.