Sabarimala hearing: Should judges rise above their religious perceptions when examining matters of conscience, SC judge asks

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 17, 2026) sought a clarification from senior advocate and jurist Rajeev Dhavan whether judges, functioning as a constitutional court, must soar above their own personal religious consciousness while called on to examine matters of freedom of conscience.

The question came from Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, who is a member of the nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant hearing the Sabarimala review case primarily on the extent to which courts could judicially review religious practices, and whether an “inquisitorial” scrutiny would be a breach of Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs).

“You said freedom of conscience has a very wide amplification. Are you hinting that as judges, as a constitutional court, religion and conscience cannot be equated as religion may be personal to me, but then when I have to judge, I have to rise above that religious consciousness to a level where I balance it with constitutional provisions and see the larger picture emerging from it?” Justice Amanullah asked Mr. Dhavan.