During the ongoing hearing of the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, challenged the Union government's argument that courts should refrain from judging religious practices as superstitious. The nine-judge bench highlighted that while courts should exercise restraint in matters of faith, they cannot be entirely stripped of jurisdiction when practices egregiously violate constitutional rights. The court noted that if a practice shocks the conscience, it can be deemed contrary to public order or morality without further adjudication. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that judges are not experts in religion and should avoid labeling practices as irrational, warning against judicial overreach. However, the bench, including Justices BV Nagarathna and MM Sundresh, countered that courts must retain the authority to examine practices for superstition, even if legislative reform is needed. The court also engaged in a broader discussion on the meaning of 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26, with differing views on whether it should be defined as societal or constitutional morality. The hearing will continue as the court seeks to clarify the scope of judicial review over religious practices and the essential religious practices doctrine.