Supreme Court on Right to Worship: Defining the Limits of Judicial Intervention

This stance appears to contrast with the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, where the Supreme Court intervened in a centuries-old tradition to allow women of all ages to enter the temple, citing the principles of constitutional morality and individual dignity. The current observation highlights an ongoing tension within the judiciary: the duty to protect fundamental rights versus the need to respect the autonomy of religious denominations. For governance and policy, this development underscores the complexity of managing a secular state with deep-rooted religious traditions. It raises questions about the extent to which the state can pursue social reform under Article 25(2) without infringing upon the "sacrosanct" rights of the faithful. It also signals a possible recalibration of the judiciary's role in interpreting religious texts and traditions. UPSC Relevance: This development is crucial for understanding the evolving nature of the 'Essential Religious Practices' doctrine and the concept of 'Constitutional Morality'. It can be used to answer questions on the separation of powers, judicial overreach, and the balance between Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) and Article 14 (Right to Equality) in GS Paper II.