NEW DELHI: In a pro-religious practice stand, the Centre told a nine-judge SC bench that the constitutional mandate under Article 25(1) entitling all persons equal “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion” did not provide for gender equality.In his rejoinder, SG Tushar Mehta told a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, “Article 25(1) does not provide for gender equality for the simple reason that Articles 15 and 16 already prohibit discrimination on the grounds, inter alia, of ‘sex’.”He said the expression ‘equally entitled’ conveyed non-discrimination on grounds of belief, faith, worship, religion or denomination. Every denomination was entitled to prescribe different modes of worship, beliefs and rituals for men and women.Advocating a hands-off approach for courts in religious issues, Mehta said only the legislature could bring about social reform through wide deliberations and discussions by representatives of people in Parliament or assemblies.“If courts may reform religion in the absence of legislation, whenever they determine that a practice offends the Constitution, there is, in practice, no limit on the judicial reformation of religious traditions. Every denomination’s internal discipline, every temple’s mode of worship, every faith’s institutional arrangements become permanently available for constitutional challenge. This consequence is not hypothetical, it has occurred in the Sabarimala case,” Mehta added.He added that the Constitution did not envisage constitutional courts as the “reformatory overlord of religious traditions of 1.4 billion citizens”. The bench reserved its verdict after a 16-day hearing spread over five weeks.Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, C S Vaidyanathan, Rakesh Dwivedi and Rajeev Dhavan agreed with the SG’s stand. Subramanium said Articles 25 and 26, which confer individual and group religious rights, operated on separate spheres and hence there could not be any conflict between them to warrant judicial interference for a harmonious interpretation.Like individuals, every denomination had the right to practice, profess and propagate its religion, he said, adding, “Denominations survive because of its spiritual leaders and its own inner strength.”Dhavan, who appeared as a party in person, said Article 26 was most important as without denomination, there was no follower and no individual right to profess a religion. “Without property and institution (like temple, mosque or church), no denomination can survive. To manage the property and propagate its faith, the denomination needs autonomy,” he said.For Nair Service Society, Vaidyanathan said it would be wrong to presume that without an individual’s right to freedom of religion, there would be no denominational rights. “A denomination’s right to manage its religious affairs is not an aggregation of its individual members’ personal rights to practise religion. It is a distinct right, vested in the denomination as a body, and it protects something qualitatively different: the community’s authority over its own faith, doctrine, ritual and governance,” he said.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi HC Judge Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Kejriwal; Refers Case To New Bench2 Days WFH To ‘No Vehicle Day’: Delhi CM Rekha Gupta Unveils Fuel-Saving Steps After PM Modi’s CallCong Picks VD Satheesan As Kerala CM; Iran FM Lands In India For Brics Meet With ‘Minab168’ MsgSupreme Court Questions CEC Appointment Process, Raises ‘Independence’ ConcernsMan Trying To Hold Tin Shed Gets Swept Into Air During Violent Storm In Bareilly, Survives Fall’Unacceptable’: India Slams Attack On Indian-Flagged Ship Near OmanEC Announces Phase 3 Of SIR Across 16 States, 3 UTs; J&K, Ladakh, Himachal Left OutEx-Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee In Lawyer’s Gown Argues Post-poll Violence Case In High CourtKC Venugopal Backs VD Satheesan as Kerala CM, Says Congress Fully United Behind HimCongress Picks VD Satheesan as Kerala CM After 10 Days of Talks and Leadership Battle123PhotostoriesTara Sutaria looks straight out of a 1950s Hollywood dream at Cannes in this vintage Vivienne Westwood coutureHappy Birthday Vicky Kaushal: With Katrina Kaif, Sunny Kaushal and family, inside the actor’s most heartwarming momentsMilk Price Hike: Popular packaged milk prices rise across India; healthy milk alternatives to add to daily dietTop 10 fascinating facts about rhinos that make them unlike any other wild animal5 animals with giant tusks and horns that make them look prehistoricHow these 5 Indian ice creams became among the 100 Most Iconic Ice Creams of the WorldRice water vs coconut water for hair growth: Which works better in summer?5 reasons why someone dislikes you – And why is it not your problemAditi Rao Hydari just landed in Cannes and her denim airport look already screams red carpet royalty10 affirmations to attract calm and genuine love123Hot PicksCBSE class 12 resultUS Iran warPrateek YadavHaryana election resultForeign outflowNEET exam cancelledTamil Nadu assemblyTop TrendingWB Class 12 Result 2026WB Board 12th ResultIPL Points TablePM Internship SchemeCalcutta High CourtMI vs PBKS IPL MatchIPL Orange Cap 2026Haryana Board ResultAir India FlightsPrateek Yadav
NEW DELHI: In a pro-religious practice stand, the Centre told a nine-judge SC bench that the constitutional mandate under Article 25(1) entitling all persons equal “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion” did not provide for gender equality.In his rejoinder, SG Tushar Mehta told a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, “Article 25(1) does not provide for gender equality for the simple reason that Articles 15 and 16 already prohibit discrimination on the grounds, inter alia, of ‘sex’.”He said the expression ‘equally entitled’ conveyed non-discrimination on grounds of belief, faith, worship, religion or denomination. Every denomination was entitled to prescribe different modes of worship, beliefs and rituals for men and women.Advocating a hands-off approach for courts in religious issues, Mehta said only the legislature could bring about social reform through wide deliberations and discussions by representatives of people in Parliament or assemblies.“If courts may reform religion in the absence of legislation, whenever they determine that a practice offends the Constitution, there is, in practice, no limit on the judicial reformation of religious traditions. Every denomination’s internal discipline, every temple’s mode of worship, every faith’s institutional arrangements become permanently available for constitutional challenge. This consequence is not hypothetical, it has occurred in the Sabarimala case,” Mehta added.He added that the Constitution did not envisage constitutional courts as the “reformatory overlord of religious traditions of 1.4 billion citizens”. The bench reserved its verdict after a 16-day hearing spread over five weeks.Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, C S Vaidyanathan, Rakesh Dwivedi and Rajeev Dhavan agreed with the SG’s stand. Subramanium said Articles 25 and 26, which confer individual and group religious rights, operated on separate spheres and hence there could not be any conflict between them to warrant judicial interference for a harmonious interpretation.Like individuals, every denomination had the right to practice, profess and propagate its religion, he said, adding, “Denominations survive because of its spiritual leaders and its own inner strength.”Dhavan, who appeared as a party in person, said Article 26 was most important as without denomination, there was no follower and no individual right to profess a religion. “Without property and institution (like temple, mosque or church), no denomination can survive. To manage the property and propagate its faith, the denomination needs autonomy,” he said.For Nair Service Society, Vaidyanathan said it would be wrong to presume that without an individual’s right to freedom of religion, there would be no denominational rights. “A denomination’s right to manage its religious affairs is not an aggregation of its individual members’ personal rights to practise religion. It is a distinct right, vested in the denomination as a body, and it protects something qualitatively different: the community’s authority over its own faith, doctrine, ritual and governance,” he said.
