During the ongoing hearings before a nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the Supreme Court addressed the complex relationship between judicial intervention and religious practices in the Sabarimala case. The court stressed that while social welfare reforms are essential, they should not lead to the erosion of religious beliefs. Chief Justice Kant remarked that courts must tread carefully to avoid declaring the beliefs of millions as erroneous. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Travancore Devaswom Board, argued for a subjective approach that respects the beliefs of the religious community, cautioning against the imposition of external moral standards on faith. He criticized the 'essential religious practices' doctrine, advocating for a focus on whether a practice is genuinely religious rather than determining its essentiality. The bench engaged in a series of questions regarding the balance between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which govern religious freedom and denominational autonomy. Singhvi defended the exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from the Sabarimala Temple, asserting that it is tied to the temple's unique character. The court is tasked with addressing seven foundational questions regarding essential religious practices and the limits of judicial review in faith matters, with hearings set to continue.