Supreme Court NEW DELHI: A nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant Wednesday cited caseload to ask if it is prudent for the court to spend enormous time to resolve religious right disputes. The poser came during the course of hearings on the challenge to the Supreme Court’s verdict allowing women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala shrine and when senior advocate Darius Khambata, appearing for Parsi woman Goolrokh M Gupta, argued that individual fundamental right to freedom of conscience and to practise, profess and propagate religion can’t be annihilated by a denomination’s diktat to excommunicate her upon marriage to a non-Parsi man as she is deemed to have embraced her husband’s religion. There are almost 93,000 cases pending with the Supreme Court at present. The bench of CJI Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi — hearing the ‘faith vs fundamental right’ debate — asked whether an inter-faith marriage under the Special Marriage Act can be classified as a religious activity. Justice Nagarathna said under Hindu customs, marriage is sacrament, in Islam, it is a contract, while under the Special Marriage Act, it is a statutory marriage, and asked if anyone is aggrieved by violation of her or his rights because of marriage, would it not be prudent to approach a civil court seeking protection of the right. Khambata said that if it is a purely religious matter, the disputing parties need not approach SC, but a woman who loses her right to enter a religious place because of her marriage can approach a constitutional court for redressal. Justice Sundresh said, “You are asking us to enter an arena where we must decide competing rights of two individuals or individual vs denomination, that is the group of followers’ rights. How does it fall within the purview of judicial scrutiny by constitutional courts? We have thousands of cases pending. Should we not devote time to that? Competing rights and claims can be decided through civil suits.” As on Wednesday, there are 92,926 cases pending in SC— 72,386 civil and 20,540 criminal cases. Of these, 36,936 cases are less than one-year-old. This year, 27,736 cases have been filed in SC, and the court has disposed of 26,662 cases.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos‘Congress Will Be Wiped Out Everywhere’: DMK Warns Cong Over Support To Vijay’s TVK2 Dead, 200+ FIRs, 433 Arrested, Over 1100 Detained In Post-Poll Violence In West Bengal‘Asked Me To Pay Rs 5 Crore’: Ex-Cricketer Makes Shocking Claim On TMC After Bengal PollsPakistan Navy Helps Stranded Indian Ship In Arabian Sea After Distress Call: ReportTVK Emerges Largest, But Vijay Needs Critical Backing To Form Govt; Will He Succeed?Election Commission Blocks 68 Lakh Cyber Attacks; ECINET Handles Record Traffic on Counting Day‘Directly Promoting ISI Narrative’: BJP Slams Bhagwant Mann’s Remark On Punjab BlastsIndia–Vietnam Upgrade Ties | $25 Billion Trade Push, UPI Link & Big Strategic Signal to China‘Shortage Of Funds’: Akhilesh Yadav Reveals Why SP Ended Contract With I-PAC Ahead Of UP PollsTeesta Issue Explained: Can Bengal Result Unlock Deal As China Factor Raises Stakes123PhotostoriesHow to make Oats, Besan, and Chaach Chilla for a light summer breakfastAre you storing fruits all wrong? Why your fridge may be ruining their taste, nutrition, and shelf lifeKL Rahul’s Bangalore home is a crores-worth luxury retreat built on cricket success and strong family rootsVisa hacks 2026: What smart Indian travellers are doing differently this yearComfort foods that are the quiet healers of your body (health benefits inside)From human-sized birds to pebble ‘proposals’: 6 facts that will change how you see penguinsEating the same food every day? Nutritionist explains what it secretly does to your gut bacteria over time7 small lifestyle upgrades under ₹1000 that make life easierTrisha Krishnan celebrates her birthday in a handwoven ensemble at Tirumala, but the internet is busy connecting it to Thalapathy Vijay’s victory waveHow to identify a Copperhead snake in your home and garden123Hot PicksGSEB 10th Result 2026Delhi traffic advisoryDelhi rainPune child rape-murder casePerambur election resultIndia-New Zealand FTASugarcane price hikeTop TrendingNFL Trade RumorsIPL 2026 Orange CapCBSE Class 10 admit card 2026IPL Playoff Qualification ScenariosIPL 2026 Points TableMI IPL Playoff Qualification ScenariosJalandhar BlastNEET 2026: Exam-day guideGSEB Class 10th result 2026TVK Chief Vijay
NEW DELHI: A nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant Wednesday cited caseload to ask if it is prudent for the court to spend enormous time to resolve religious right disputes. The poser came during the course of hearings on the challenge to the Supreme Court’s verdict allowing women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala shrine and when senior advocate Darius Khambata, appearing for Parsi woman Goolrokh M Gupta, argued that individual fundamental right to freedom of conscience and to practise, profess and propagate religion can’t be annihilated by a denomination’s diktat to excommunicate her upon marriage to a non-Parsi man as she is deemed to have embraced her husband’s religion. There are almost 93,000 cases pending with the Supreme Court at present. The bench of CJI Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi — hearing the ‘faith vs fundamental right’ debate — asked whether an inter-faith marriage under the Special Marriage Act can be classified as a religious activity. Justice Nagarathna said under Hindu customs, marriage is sacrament, in Islam, it is a contract, while under the Special Marriage Act, it is a statutory marriage, and asked if anyone is aggrieved by violation of her or his rights because of marriage, would it not be prudent to approach a civil court seeking protection of the right. Khambata said that if it is a purely religious matter, the disputing parties need not approach SC, but a woman who loses her right to enter a religious place because of her marriage can approach a constitutional court for redressal. Justice Sundresh said, “You are asking us to enter an arena where we must decide competing rights of two individuals or individual vs denomination, that is the group of followers’ rights. How does it fall within the purview of judicial scrutiny by constitutional courts? We have thousands of cases pending. Should we not devote time to that? Competing rights and claims can be decided through civil suits.” As on Wednesday, there are 92,926 cases pending in SC— 72,386 civil and 20,540 criminal cases. Of these, 36,936 cases are less than one-year-old. This year, 27,736 cases have been filed in SC, and the court has disposed of 26,662 cases.
