The Indian government has requested the Supreme Court to maintain the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, asserting that such matters fall under religious faith and should not be subject to judicial review. The case could redefine the limits of judicial intervention in religious practices and the concept of constitutional morality.

• 01The government argues that the Sabarimala entry restriction is a matter of religious belief, not gender discrimination.
• 02It seeks to uphold the 2018 Joseph Shine judgment's critique, claiming it relies on vague concepts of 'constitutional morality.'
• 03The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench will address broader questions regarding judicial review of religious practices.
• 04The government's submissions emphasize that the essentiality of religious practices should be determined by the faith community, not the courts.
• 05This case could have implications for women's access to other religious sites and the autonomy of religious communities.

The outcome of this case could redefine access to religious sites for women and the autonomy of religious communities in India, affecting how religious practices are interpreted and enforced.