Judicial and Legislative Roles Clash in Religious Practice Reforms

The Supreme Court reinforced its stance that constitutionalism must not be overridden by majoritarianism in a democratic setup. Addressing cases concerning women's discrimination at religious sites, the court asserted its authority to intervene in practices that disrupt public order, morality, or health.

However, the Centre argued through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that such issues should rest within the legislative domain, as exemplified in historic social reforms led by legislation, not courts. The Centre posits that laws created through legislative processes hold greater public acceptance over judicial verdicts.

Despite disagreements within the nine-judge bench over the legislature's role in addressing religious issues, the court maintained its commitment to uphold constitutional principles and scrutinize practices to ensure they adhere to constitutional standards. Hearings are set to continue, focusing on the delicate balance between law, religion, and individual rights.

(With inputs from agencies.)