Justice BV Nagarathna has begun writing the judgment in the long-pending Sabarimala reference, becoming the first woman judge on the Supreme Court’s nine-member Constitution Bench to take up the task.
The development places Justice Nagarathna at the centre of a case that could have far-reaching implications for religious freedom, judicial review and the Supreme Court’s approach to the “essential religious practices” doctrine.
The nine-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, reserved its judgment on May 14 after 16 days of hearings. Besides the CJI and Justice Nagarathna, the bench comprises Justices MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The other judges remain free to write separate opinions.
How the Sabarimala Reference Began
The reference stems from the Supreme Court’s September 2018 Sabarimala judgment. In a 4:1 majority, the court allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The majority held that the exclusion of women aged between 10 and 50 could not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Review petitions followed, prompting the court to consider a wider set of constitutional questions.
These include the relationship between Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the scope of judicial review over religious practices, the meaning of a religious denomination and the extent to which courts can apply the essential religious practices test.
Why Justice Nagarathna’s Role Matters
Justice Nagarathna heard the entire marathon of arguments and expressed views on several important issues during the proceedings.
Her role as the first judge to begin writing the judgment is significant, particularly given her record of taking independent positions in major Constitution Bench cases.
In the 2023 demonetisation judgment, Justice Nagarathna was the lone dissenter. She held that the Centre could not invalidate the entire series of ₹500 and ₹1,000 currency notes through a simple notification and that such a move required legislation.
She also dissented in the Supreme Court’s 2024 nine-judge Constitution Bench ruling on mineral taxation. The majority held that royalty under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, was a payment made by a mining lessee to the state and not a tax. It consequently held that states could levy taxes on mineral rights.
Justice Nagarathna disagreed. She viewed royalty as a statutory tax on mineral rights and held that mineral-bearing land could not be subjected to an additional layer of state taxation under Entries 49 or 50 of the State List. She also warned that overlapping taxes could fragment fiscal policy and encourage unhealthy competition among states.
Her Position During the Sabarimala Hearings
During the Sabarimala hearings, Justice Nagarathna engaged closely with the competing claims of religious autonomy and constitutional scrutiny.
She suggested that the essential religious practices doctrine could have a limited role in determining whether a particular practice is genuinely religious, rather than being used as a test for denying constitutional protection.
She also questioned whether the original petition challenging the Sabarimala custom was maintainable when the petitioners themselves were not devotees. At the same time, she examined the constitutional basis for judicial intervention in matters involving religious faith and practice.
The questions before the bench therefore go beyond Sabarimala itself. They concern how far constitutional courts can examine religious practices and where the boundary lies between religious autonomy and fundamental rights.
Justice Indu Malhotra’s 2018 Dissent
The 2018 Sabarimala judgment had its own important dissent from another woman judge, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud formed the majority that struck down the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50.
Justice Malhotra disagreed. She held that the challenge should not have been entertained and that the exclusionary practice was protected by devotees’ right to freely practise religion under Article 25.
She also cautioned against courts determining questions of religious belief through concepts such as rationality and constitutional morality.
Nearly eight years later, another woman judge is now writing a judgment that will examine the broader constitutional questions that emerged from that earlier verdict.
Justice Nagarathna’s Road to the Supreme Court
Justice BV Nagarathna was elevated to the Supreme Court in August 2021 after serving as a judge of the Karnataka High Court.
Born on October 30, 1962, she began practising law in 1985 and became a permanent judge of the Karnataka High Court in 2010.
She is due to retire on October 29, 2027. Under the established seniority convention, she is in line to become the first woman Chief Justice of India. If appointed, she would occupy the post in 2027 before retiring later that year.
A Judgment With Wider Constitutional Consequences
The judgment Justice Nagarathna has now begun writing will be closely watched for how the nine-judge bench resolves questions that have remained unsettled for nearly seven years.
At stake is not simply the future interpretation of the Sabarimala dispute. The ruling could shape the Supreme Court’s approach to religious freedom, judicial review and the essential religious practices doctrine for years to come.
It could also clarify how constitutional rights interact with religious practices when courts are asked to decide where faith ends and constitutional scrutiny begins.
The development places Justice Nagarathna at the centre of a case that could have far-reaching implications for religious freedom, judicial review and the Supreme Court’s approach to the “essential religious practices” doctrine.
The nine-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, reserved its judgment on May 14 after 16 days of hearings. Besides the CJI and Justice Nagarathna, the bench comprises Justices MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The other judges remain free to write separate opinions.
How the Sabarimala Reference Began
The reference stems from the Supreme Court’s September 2018 Sabarimala judgment. In a 4:1 majority, the court allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The majority held that the exclusion of women aged between 10 and 50 could not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Review petitions followed, prompting the court to consider a wider set of constitutional questions.
These include the relationship between Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the scope of judicial review over religious practices, the meaning of a religious denomination and the extent to which courts can apply the essential religious practices test.
Why Justice Nagarathna’s Role Matters
Justice Nagarathna heard the entire marathon of arguments and expressed views on several important issues during the proceedings.
Her role as the first judge to begin writing the judgment is significant, particularly given her record of taking independent positions in major Constitution Bench cases.
In the 2023 demonetisation judgment, Justice Nagarathna was the lone dissenter. She held that the Centre could not invalidate the entire series of ₹500 and ₹1,000 currency notes through a simple notification and that such a move required legislation.
She also dissented in the Supreme Court’s 2024 nine-judge Constitution Bench ruling on mineral taxation. The majority held that royalty under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, was a payment made by a mining lessee to the state and not a tax. It consequently held that states could levy taxes on mineral rights.
Justice Nagarathna disagreed. She viewed royalty as a statutory tax on mineral rights and held that mineral-bearing land could not be subjected to an additional layer of state taxation under Entries 49 or 50 of the State List. She also warned that overlapping taxes could fragment fiscal policy and encourage unhealthy competition among states.
Her Position During the Sabarimala Hearings
During the Sabarimala hearings, Justice Nagarathna engaged closely with the competing claims of religious autonomy and constitutional scrutiny.
She suggested that the essential religious practices doctrine could have a limited role in determining whether a particular practice is genuinely religious, rather than being used as a test for denying constitutional protection.
She also questioned whether the original petition challenging the Sabarimala custom was maintainable when the petitioners themselves were not devotees. At the same time, she examined the constitutional basis for judicial intervention in matters involving religious faith and practice.
The questions before the bench therefore go beyond Sabarimala itself. They concern how far constitutional courts can examine religious practices and where the boundary lies between religious autonomy and fundamental rights.
Justice Indu Malhotra’s 2018 Dissent
The 2018 Sabarimala judgment had its own important dissent from another woman judge, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud formed the majority that struck down the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50.
Justice Malhotra disagreed. She held that the challenge should not have been entertained and that the exclusionary practice was protected by devotees’ right to freely practise religion under Article 25.
She also cautioned against courts determining questions of religious belief through concepts such as rationality and constitutional morality.
Nearly eight years later, another woman judge is now writing a judgment that will examine the broader constitutional questions that emerged from that earlier verdict.
Justice Nagarathna’s Road to the Supreme Court
Justice BV Nagarathna was elevated to the Supreme Court in August 2021 after serving as a judge of the Karnataka High Court.
Born on October 30, 1962, she began practising law in 1985 and became a permanent judge of the Karnataka High Court in 2010.
She is due to retire on October 29, 2027. Under the established seniority convention, she is in line to become the first woman Chief Justice of India. If appointed, she would occupy the post in 2027 before retiring later that year.
A Judgment With Wider Constitutional Consequences
The judgment Justice Nagarathna has now begun writing will be closely watched for how the nine-judge bench resolves questions that have remained unsettled for nearly seven years.
At stake is not simply the future interpretation of the Sabarimala dispute. The ruling could shape the Supreme Court’s approach to religious freedom, judicial review and the essential religious practices doctrine for years to come.
It could also clarify how constitutional rights interact with religious practices when courts are asked to decide where faith ends and constitutional scrutiny begins.
Leave a Comment