2026 ഏപ്രിൽ 13, തിങ്കളാഴ്‌ച

BJP-ruled UP tops in cases of Dalit atrocities

UP leads in cases of atrocities against Dalits, Madhya Pradesh tops in most crimes reported against ST’sUttar Pradesh reported 12,287 cases, Rajasthan 8,651, and Madhya Pradesh 7,732 of Dalit atrocities in 2022, reveals a Ministry of Social Justice report

24, Sep 2024 | Aman Khan

States ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) top in high number of cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (PoA Act) in the year 2022. A union government report published by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment reveals that Uttar Pradesh, reported a staggering 12,287 cases accounting for 23.78% of the total 51,656 cases registered under the PoA Act (97.7 % atrocity cases against Dalits). Following this, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh are positioned on top in registration of cases of atrocities against Dalits. The report’s findings are a grim reminder of India’s ongoing struggle with caste-based violence and discrimination against marginalised communities.

Meanwhile, the state of Madhya Pradesh is at the top, with 2979 cases of atrocities/violence against STs, Rajasthan being the second highest with 2498 and Odisha only accounts for 773 cases – in registration of cases of offences of atrocities against the scheduled tribe community.

The union ministry report also reveals that, 52,866 cases of atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and 9,725 cases of Scheduled Tribes (STs) were registered in year 2022 under the PoA Act. The majority of these cases, a staggering 97.7%, were recorded in just 13 states, with BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh topping the list. In 2022, out of 51,656 cases registered under the PoA Act, Uttar Pradesh reported 12,287 cases accounting for 23.78% of the total 97.7 % cases of atrocities against Dalits in 2022 was reported in 13 states. Following this, Rajasthan reported second highest atrocities cases of Dalits with 8,651 cases (16.75%), while Madhya Pradesh had 7,732 cases, making up 14.97%. Other states with a significant number of cases include Bihar with 6509, Odisha with 2902 cases and Maharashtra with 2276 cases.

Moreover, as the table above shows thirteen States, cumulatively accounting for 97.7% (51656) of the total cases (52866) relating to offences of atrocities against members of SCs, registered under the PoA Act in conjunction with the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (repealed), during the year 2022. The report also provides the figures pertaining to the atrocities against the STs. The 13 states directly account for 98.91% (9627) of the total 9735 cases.

India’s disturbing trend of caste-based violence continues to escalate, with Uttar Pradesh topping the list of atrocities against Dalits and marginalised communities. According to the National Crime Record Bureau’s 2022 data, (same period as the ministry’s report) the state reported a staggering 15,368 cases, marking a 16% increase from 2021’s 13,146 cases. Rajasthan follows closely, ranking second with 8,752 registered cases of anti-Dalit violence. Madhya Pradesh retains its third position, accounting for 7,733 cases of atrocities against Dalits.

NCRB 2022 report shows 57,582 cases of Dalit Violence in 2022

The National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) ‘Crime in India’ annual report for the year 2022 also highlighted that the total number of 57,582 cases were registered for committing crimes against Scheduled Castes (SCs), an increase of 13.1% over 2021 (50,900 cases). The crime rate registered shown an increase from 25.3% in 2021 to 28.6% in 2022. In crime head-wise cases, highest number of cases (18,428, 32.0%) were registered under simple hurt followed by cases under Criminal Intimidation with 9.2% (5,274 cases) and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act with 8.2% (4,703 cases).

Similarly, a total of 10,064 cases were registered for committing crime against Scheduled Tribes (STs), showing an increase of 14.3% over 2021 (8,802 cases). Anti-Dalit crime rate registered increased from 8.4% in 2021 to 9.6% in 2022. The NCRB figures further elaborated that in Crime head-wise cases, highest number of cases (2,826 cases, 28.1%) were registered under simple hurt (2,826 cases) followed by rape with 13.4% (1,347 cases) and assault on women with intent to outrage her modesty with 10.2% (1,022 cases).

The report highlighted that Uttar Pradesh (15,368), Rajasthan (8,752), Madhya Pradesh (7,733), and Bihar (6,509) reported the highest number of crimes against SCs. In UP, the number of crimes against SCs went up from 13146 in 2021 to 15368 in 2022 – an increase of 16%. The figure was 12,714 in 2020.

BJP-ruled UP tops in cases of Dalit atrocities

Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, grapples with an alarming rise in Dalit atrocities. Uttar Pradesh ruled by the BJP for two terms under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, has earned the unfortunate distinction of topping the list of states with the highest number of registered cases of atrocities against Dalits. Registration of 12,287 Dalits atrocities cases, consisting 23.78% of the total cases reported nationwide in year 2022.

Investigation done by police during 2022 in PoA cases

As the report states, 69,597 cases related to SCs and 12,417 of STs were brought forward by the Police. In which chargesheet had been filed in 49,852 cases and 77 cases transferred to another State/Agency. At investigation stage, 65 cases have been quashed /stayed by the court and Final Report has been filed in 12,113 due to reason of false case, mistake of fact/law, insufficient evidence etc.

However, at the end of 2022, 17,166 cases of SCs and 2,702 ST cases pending with the police, only 2 cases investigated u/s 157(1)(b) of CrPC during the year 2022. In these cases, it is seen that 60.38% cases relating to Scheduled Castes were charge sheeted in courts during 2022, in 14.78% SCs cases final report submitted (such as false, mistake of fact/law, true but insufficient evidence) during the 2022. Similarly, 63.38% cases related to SCs were charge sheeted during the year, with 14.71% of cases having final reports submitted, during the year 2022.

Notably, the disturbing trend in the report also revealed that the conviction rate under the Prevention of Atrocities (PoA) Act plummeted to 32.4% in 2022, a significant drop from 39.2% in 2020.

This downward spiral raises questions about the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies and judicial cognizance in protecting Dalits from caste-based violence despite stringent laws. Further compounding the issue is the scarcity of special courts designated to handle these cases. Out of 498 districts across 14 states, only 194 have established these crucial courts, hindering swift justice for victims, according to report.

Report flags lack of Exclusive Special Courts in India

As section 14 of the PoA Act, empowered the state government to establish Exclusive Special Court for one or more district for dealing with the atrocity and violence cases of scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of providing a speedy trial in such cases, the number of Exclusive Special Courts are not adequate in India as out of 498 total districts across the country only 194 special courts have been established. The number of special courts in the country are not even half of the total districts within the country.

This shortfall created a significant obstacle in delivering justice to victims of caste-based violence and discrimination. As Exclusive Special Courts have powers to take direct cognizance of offences under the Act, the inadequacy of Exclusive Special Courts hampered the proper implementation of the PoA Act and led to delays and ineffectiveness in anti-Dalit violence cases. The report stressed that it is the duty of the State Government to establish adequate number of Courts to ensure that cases under the PoA Act are disposed of within a period of two months, as far as possible.

Special Police Stations for SCs and STs Complaints set up by five states only

As per the report, Special Police Stations for registration of complaints of offences against members of the SCs and STs have been set up in five States includes Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh. In Bihar’s 38 districts, 40 Special Police Station has been established, in Chhattisgarh’s 28 districts, 27 Special Police Station, 24 in Jharkhand’s 24 districts, 3 in Kerala’s 14 districts and, 51 in Madhya Pradesh’s 52 districts. Despite almost equal establishment of Special Police Station in MP, the state positioned on third in accounting of atrocity cases against Dalits and the marginalised.

Dalit Atrocities soar in UP, 49,613 cases reported from 2018-2021

In March 2023, the Indian government informed Parliament that a staggering number of over 1.9 lakh cases of crimes against Dalits were recorded during the four-year period from 2018. According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Uttar Pradesh alone has reported 49,613 cases of total atrocities and attacks on Dalits (11,924 in 2018, 11,829 in 2019, 12,714 in 2020, and 13,146 in 2021). Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Ajay Kumar Mishra, shared this information in response to a question posed by BSP MP Girish Chandra, who inquired about mechanisms for monitoring such incidents.

NCRB data shows 57,582 cases of Dalit Violence in 2022

The National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) ‘Crime in India’ report for the year 2022 also revealed that a total of 57,582 cases were registered for committing a crime against Scheduled Castes (SCs), an increase of 13.1% from 2021 (50,900 cases). The crime rate registered an increase from 25.3% in 2021 to 28.6% in 2022. The report highlighted that Uttar Pradesh (15,368), Rajasthan (8,752), Madhya Pradesh (7,733), and Bihar (6,509) reported the highest number of crimes against SCs. In UP, the number of crimes against SCs went up from 13146 in 2021 to 15368 in 2022 – an increase of 16%. The figure was 12,714 in 2020.

Most recent shocking instances of anti-Dalit violence in UP, Rajasthan and MP

Sabrang India and CJP have been diligently tracking the alarming rise of hate crimes against Dalits and other marginalised communities in India. The numerous incidents include violence, discrimination, and social exclusion of Dalits have been reported, highlighting the devastating reality of Dalit survival in the country.

Uttar Pradesh

BJP’s government in Uttar Pradesh has faced many severe criticisms for its inability to prevent Dalit violence in the state, despite being in power for two consecutive terms. The recent surge in anti-Dalit attacks has raised concerns about the government’s commitment to protecting the rights of the Dalit community in the state. As the whole country witnessed the horrible tragic incidents of Hathras and Lakhimpur Kheri in year 2020, representing a distressing chapter in India’s ongoing struggle with anti-Dalits crimes and caste discrimination in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The tragic incident of Lakhimpur Kheri where two Dalit minor sisters were found hanging from a tree in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur district. The family alleged abduction, rape, and murder, later post-mortem reports confirmed that the Dalit sisters were raped before being murder. Similarly, the Hathras incident of rape, murder, and alleged systemic failures, has revealed the systematic exclusion of Social Justice against the victims belonged to Dalits and marginalised communities, especially Dalit women.

CJP’s recent report on Dalit atrocities in the state of Uttar Pradesh may be read here

On August 18, 2024, in Uttar Pradesh’s Ambedkar Nagar, a 21-year-old gang-rape survivor ended her life after UP Police denied to lodge an FIR against three men for the crime and coerced her father into misreporting the complaint. Father of the victim revealed that his daughter had gone missing from their home on the evening of August 16. The father immediately went to the local police outpost to file an FIR but the Police refused to lodge an FIR and forced him to change the complaint. On August 18, the victim’s younger sister discovered her hanging in her room. The devastated father reported to police that his daughter had felt humiliated and abandoned due to the authorities lack of response.

On October 5, 2022, in Ambedkar Nagar, a student hung herself from the ceiling of her room. The father of the victim has reportedly stated that she had gone into “depression” after allegedly being kidnapped and gang-raped by two youth when she was on her way to school in the district’s Malipur area.

Rajasthan

Rajasthan reported the second highest number of Dalit atrocities nationwide, with 8,651 cases reported in 2022. The state’s disturbing trend of violence and discrimination against Dalits persists, despite laws aimed at protection. Brutal incidents, including killings, rapes, and social boycott highlight the need for urgent action and accountability.

On January 26, 2024, a 17 year old tenth-grade student, was busy with creating reels at Ajmer’s Ana Sagar Chaupaati, a popular place for tourists and visitors, when he was attacked. A group of young men approached him and demanded he stop taking videos. Following which, the men who have been identified as Pushpendra, Rohit, and Gokul, assaulted the boy brutally. They used sticks and forced him to kneel down, and made him utter the word “papa.” The torment did not end there; one of the perpetrators even urinated on the young victim and reportedly even forced him to drink liquor.

In Rajasthan’s Alwar, an eight-year-old Dalit boy was reportedly assaulted for touching a water bucket near a hand pump in a village in Rajasthan’s Alwar district. As per a report by the Indian Express, the police have stated that the incident occurred on the morning of March 30, 2024 when the boy, a fourth-grade student at the village’s government school, went to drink water from the hand pump on school grounds. As per the complaint, a man from a higher caste, who was filling the bucket with water at the Time, attacked the boy when he touched the bucket. The man refused to apologise and even shouted at the boy’s family, subjecting them to casteist abuse. A police complaint has been lodged in Ramgarh police station by the parents.

Another incident in Rajasthan’s  Karauli district, in what seems to be a shocking incident, a magistrate reportedly asked a Dalit gang rape survivor to undress to inspect her injuries. The magistrate has been booked after the survivor lodged a complaint on March 30, 2024 accusing the magistrate of requesting this during a court session in Hindaun. The incident is being treated as an instance of outraging modesty, and charges have been filed under section 345 of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh reported the third highest number of Dalit atrocities nationwide was also faced criticism recently for curtailing welfare funds of the SC/STs and diverting the SC/ST welfare fund for the welfare of cows, museums and religious sites. As per a document reviewed by the HT, ₹252 crore has been allotted to cow welfare (Gau Samvardhan and Pashi Samvardhan), a total of ₹95.76 crore has been allocated from the SC/ST sub-plan. Madhya Pradesh’s decision to divert ₹95.76 crore from the SC/ST welfare fund to support cow welfare, museums, and religious sites was a shocking betrayal against marginalised communities. This move not only undermines the government’s duty to ensure social justice but also perpetuates the systemic oppression of Dalits. The cow welfare fund has increased from about ₹90 crore in the last year. Madhya Pradesh was the second state after Karnataka to divert funds from the SC/ST sub-plan for other schemes. Karnataka decided to take ₹14,000 crore from the sub-plan for funding its welfare scheme.

A Dalit youth in Mainpuri, while working on his own land, was attacked by a group of men. The authorities have registered a case involving assault and harassment against the Dalit community under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As per reports, the police are now searching for the culprits who are currently absconding. The police have filed a complaint against one Munshi Khan and his associates.

In Morena, Madhya Pradesh, a Dalit sarpanch was reportedly tied to a tree and beaten. After the violence, the man was forced to flee his native village. The sarpanch of Koutharkalan panchayat has reportedly filed a complaint at the Porsa police station on Thursday. He had reportedly faced harassment over the past two years. The attackers had pressured him to leave his position and hand over his digital account details. However, after he refused to follow their demands, the goons allegedly took him to the outskirts of Koutharkalan, tied him to a tree, and brutally thrashed him, covered in a report by CJP.

However, before 2022, India registered 1,89,945 cases of crimes against the Dalit community during the four-year span (42,793 in 2018, 45,961 in 2019, 50,291 in 2020, and 50,900 in 2021). Out of all these cases, chargesheets were filed in 1,50,454 of these cases which resulted in only 27,754 convictions. These are records of only reported crimes having taken place, there is no way to account for cases that never reached law enforcement officers.

What is the Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989?

While acknowledging the deep-rooted caste system and its role in perpetuating atrocities, the Parliament of India enacted the scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 that come into force with effect from January 30, 1990. This special legislation enacted with aims to preventing commission of offences by persons other than Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes against members of SCs and STs and also provide for Special Courts for trial of such offences and for relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The PoA Act is extended to whole of India.

Ineffective implementation of PoA act still a challenge for Social Justice

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, remains ineffectively implemented, undermining social justice and defying Supreme Court directives. Despite landmark judgments and established special courts, rising atrocities and low conviction rates expose systemic apathy, compromising protection for marginalised communities.

Importantly, the Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement of National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 432, where the bench led by then CJI T.S. Thakur and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao, directed the strict implementation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This pivotal decision affirmed the findings of the Justice K. Punnaiah Commission (appointed by the Andhra Pradesh Govt in April, 2003 to inquire into the crimes suffered by SCs and STs) and the 6th Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

In the National Human Rights Commission’s ‘Open House Discussion’ on “Prevention of Atrocities and other forms of Discrimination against SC/ST Community: Challenges, Protection and Way Forward” held on June 23, 2023, the Director, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment also expressed its concern and pointed out that a predominant rise in cases can be seen after the amendments that widened the gambit of the Act when they were introduced. This requires strengthening of the administrative regime, especially the institutional mechanisms or the Police Protection Cells as mandated under the PoA Act, which is being looked after by the MoSJ&E. He further added that as of now, a total of 176 executive special courts have been constituted across the country in order to make the system more approachable for the victims.

The full report of the Ministry of Social Justice may be read here:


2026 ഏപ്രിൽ 7, ചൊവ്വാഴ്ച

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/judgment-allowing-women-entry-in-sabarimala-temple-wrong-centre-tells-supreme-court-in-9-judge-bench-reference-529348

During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Union Government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the 2018 judgment permitting entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple was wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law.

Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a 9-judge bench that the 2018 ruling requires reconsideration and reversal on legal grounds.

"It is my case that it is wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law," the Solicitor General stated during the hearing of the Sabarimala reference.

The SG also submitted that he has strong objections to the view expressed in the Sabarimala judgment that the bar on women's entry amounted to untouchability, violating Article 17 of the Constitution. The SG argued that the restriction on women's entry was only based on age. He added that there was no universal exclusion of women in Ayyappa Temples, and Sabarimala's restriction was due to the unique nature of the deity present there.

The SG also submitted that Western notions of patriarchy and gender stereotypes should not be blindly applied to India, without understanding India's civilisational values.

As regards the equal right guaranteed under Article 25, the SG said it should be understood in the sense of equality between religions, and the issue of gender did not arise under Article 25.

The 2018 judgment, delivered by a five-judge Bench by a 4:1 majority, had permitted entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple, holding that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination.

During the course of submissions, the Solicitor General clarified that the present reference before the Constitution Bench involves a broader set of constitutional questions relating to the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the scope of judicial intervention in matters of religious practice.

He emphasised that the Union's submissions should not be viewed solely through the lens of the Sabarimala case, which he described as a sui generis matter. According to him, the Court is presently examining foundational questions of law and judicial policy that may have implications beyond a single dispute.

"I am not touching the Sabarimala part, I will deal with it in a different manner. It is a sui generis case. Right now, my lords are examining the questions of law and the judicial policy which my lords will apply. Henceforth, it may be advisable for me not to be coloured by one particular sui generis case, though it is in my case that it is wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law, for more than one reason," he submitted.

The bench expressed during the hearing that it will not go into the merits of the Sabarimala judgment, and will confine itself to the 7 Constitutional questions before it.

In November 2019, a 5-judge bench, which was hearing the review petitions filed against the Sabarimala verdict, referred certain issues to a 9-judge bench, holding that there were certain inconsistencies between the 7-judge bench decision in Shirur Mutt and the 5-judge bench decision in Dargah Committee.

The 9-judge bench later framed 7 questions, which are :

(i) What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

(ii) What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?

(iii) Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India apart from public order, morality and health?

(iv) What is the scope and extent of the word 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?

(v) What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

(vi) What is the meaning of expression “Sections of Hindus” occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?

(vii) Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?

Opening the arguments today, SG Tushar Mehta took the bench through the Constituent Assembly Debates pertaining to Articles 25 and 26. He argued that the judicially evolved 'essential religious practices' test was flawed, and that it was not for the Courts to determine the essentiality of any religious practice.

As per the Constitution, it was for the legislature to make law for reform in any religion, in terms of Article 25(2)(b), the law officer of the Centre added.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the reference.

Also from today's hearing:

India Not Patriarchal Or Gender Stereotyped As The West Understands : Solicitor General To Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

 'There Can't Be Untouchability For 3 Days A Month', Justice Nagarathna On Article 17 Application In Sabarimala Case

Case Details: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sabarimala-reference-live-updates-from-supreme-court-9-judge-bench-day-4-530302

2026 മാർച്ച് 14, ശനിയാഴ്‌ച

Sabarimala Reference Consultation With Religious Scholars Needed Before Judicial Review Of Traditions Kerala Tells Supreme Court

The State of Kerala has told the Supreme Court that judicial examination of long-standing religious practices should ideally be undertaken only after consulting religious scholars and social reformers with authentic knowledge of the faith concerned.

In written submissions filed in the reference before the 9-judge bench arising out of the Sabarimala review , the State submitted that when courts examine religious traditions connected with beliefs followed for centuries, they should first solicit the views of eminent religious scholars and reputed social reformers of the concerned religion.

The nine-judge is examining broader Constitutional questions relating to religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Responding to the issues framed in the reference, the State argued that when courts undertake judicial review of religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution, the inquiry should not focus on whether the practice appeals to reason or sentiment. Instead, the question should be whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the religion.

It submitted that the determination of whether a practice forms an essential part of religion must primarily be assessed with reference to the doctrines and beliefs of the religion and the views of the community following it.

“Any judicial review into any religious practice followed for so many years connected with the belief and values accepted by the people must be after wide consultation with and after soliciting views of eminent religious scholars and reputed social reformers of that religion,” the State submitted.

The State, which had earlier supported women entry in the Sabarimala temple, and had faced intense backlash over allowing women to visit the temple, said that its previous experience supported the view that consultation with religious scholars was necessary in such matters.

“Previous experience in the matter of Sabarimala shrine and the response of devotees including women devotees would support the above submission,” it said.

On Interplay Between Articles 25 And 26

Addressing the relationship between individual religious rights under Article 25 and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26, the State submitted that laws enacted under Article 25(2), particularly for social reform or for opening Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus, would prevail over denominational claims.

According to the State, such laws would be binding even on denominational temples, and religious denominations cannot rely on Article 26 to avoid compliance with such legislation.

Meaning Of 'Morality' In Articles 25 And 26

On the question of “morality” as a constitutional limitation on religious freedom, the State submitted that the term should be understood in the sense of constitutional morality.

It stated that morality under Articles 25 and 26 must be rooted in constitutional principles such as equality, prohibition of discrimination and untouchability, protection of life and personal liberty and promotion of social welfare.

Scope Of Judicial Review

The State also addressed the extent to which courts can review religious practices. Relying on the principles laid down in the Shirur Mutt case, it submitted that the determination of whether a practice is an essential part of religion must primarily be assessed with reference to the doctrines and beliefs of that religion.

According to the State, courts should examine whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held by the community rather than whether the practice appears rational or acceptable.

The State further reiterated that judicial examination of long-standing religious practices should ideally involve consultation with religious scholars and social reformers.

Meaning Of “Sections Of Hindus”

The State also clarified that the phrase “sections of Hindus” under Article 25(2)(b) includes any division or sub-division within the Hindu community, such as castes or sub-castes.

According to the State, the provision was introduced in the Constitution primarily to enable legislation opening Hindu religious institutions to communities that were historically denied entry, but its scope extends to all classes and sections of Hindus, including women.

PILs Challenging Religious Practices

On the issue of locus standi, the State submitted that ordinarily a person not belonging to a particular religious denomination may not have sufficient interest to challenge the practices of that group through a public interest litigation.

However, it stated that an exception may arise where a grave human rights violation is alleged to be occurring in the name of religion.

The written submissions were settled by Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta and filed through Standing Counsel for the State of Kerala, Nishe Rajen Shonker.

Background

The original writ petition filed in 2006 had sought directions to allow women aged between 10 and 50 to enter the Sabarimala temple and to declare Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 unconstitutional for allegedly violating Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench by a 4:1 majority held that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50 from the temple violated their right to practice religion and struck down Rule 3(b) as unconstitutional. Justice Indu Malhotra delivered the lone dissent.

Subsequently, review petitions were filed. In November 2019, a five-judge bench by majority kept the review petitions pending and referred broader questions concerning the scope of religious freedom and essential religious practices to a nine-judge bench.

The nine-judge bench is presently examining broader constitutional questions relating to the scope of religious freedom, the doctrine of essential religious practices and the limits of judicial review, the answers to which will have a bearing on the pending Sabarimala review petitions.

The Court will hear the reference on April 7.


https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sabarimala-reference-consultation-with-religious-scholars-needed-before-judicial-review-of-traditions-kerala-tells-supreme-court-526448


ശബരിമല പുനഃപരിശോധനാ ഹർജികളുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട് സുപ്രീം കോടതിയുടെ ഒൻപതംഗ ബെഞ്ചിന് മുൻപാകെ കേരള സർക്കാർ സമർപ്പിച്ച സുപ്രധാന നിലപാടുകളുടെ സംഗ്രഹം താഴെ നൽകുന്നു.

കേരള സർക്കാരിന്റെ പ്രധാന വാദങ്ങൾ

ശതാബ്ദങ്ങളായി നിലനിൽക്കുന്ന മതപരമായ ആചാരങ്ങളിൽ കോടതി ഇടപെടുന്നതിന് മുൻപ് ആ മതത്തിലെ പണ്ഡിതന്മാരുമായും സാമൂഹിക പരിഷ്കർത്താക്കളുമായും വിപുലമായ കൂടിയാലോചന നടത്തണമെന്ന് കേരള സർക്കാർ സത്യവാങ്മൂലത്തിൽ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു.

1. പണ്ഡിതന്മാരുടെ അഭിപ്രായം തേടണം

മതപരമായ ആചാരങ്ങളുടെ ഭരണഘടനാപരമായ സാധുത പരിശോധിക്കുമ്പോൾ, ആ വിശ്വാസത്തിൽ ആധികാരിക അറിവുള്ള മതപണ്ഡിതന്മാരുടെയും സാമൂഹിക പരിഷ്കർത്താക്കളുടെയും അഭിപ്രായം കോടതി തേടണം. ശബരിമലയിലെ മുൻ അനുഭവങ്ങളും ഭക്തരുടെ (സ്ത്രീകൾ ഉൾപ്പെടെയുള്ളവർ) പ്രതികരണങ്ങളും ഇത്തരമൊരു കൂടിയാലോചന അത്യാവശ്യമാണെന്ന് വ്യക്തമാക്കുന്നുവെന്ന് സർക്കാർ ചൂണ്ടിക്കാട്ടി.

2. 'അത്യാവശ്യ മതപരമായ ആചാരങ്ങൾ' (Essential Religious Practices)

ഒരു ആചാരം യുക്തിസഹമാണോ എന്നതിലുപരി, ആ മതം പിന്തുടരുന്നവർ അത് അവിഭാജ്യമായ ഒന്നായിട്ടാണോ വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നത് എന്നതിനാണ് കോടതി മുൻഗണന നൽകേണ്ടത്. വിശ്വാസികളുടെ ബോധ്യവും മതഗ്രന്ഥങ്ങളുമാണ് ഇതിന് മാനദണ്ഡമാകേണ്ടത്.

3. ഭരണഘടനാപരമായ ധാർമ്മികത (Constitutional Morality)

ഭരണഘടനയിലെ 25, 26 അനുച്ഛേദങ്ങളിൽ പറയുന്ന 'ധാർമ്മികത' എന്നത് ഭരണഘടനാപരമായ ധാർമ്മികതയാണ്. ഇത് സമത്വം, വിവേചനമില്ലായ്മ, അയിത്ത നിർമ്മാർജ്ജനം, വ്യക്തിസ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം എന്നിവയിൽ അധിഷ്ഠിതമായിരിക്കണം.

4. അനുച്ഛേദം 25-ഉം 26-ഉം തമ്മിലുള്ള ബന്ധം

വ്യക്തികളുടെ മതസ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള 25-ാം അനുച്ഛേദവും മതവിഭാഗങ്ങളുടെ അവകാശങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള 26-ാം അനുച്ഛേദവും തമ്മിൽ തർക്കമുണ്ടായാൽ, സാമൂഹിക പരിഷ്കരണത്തിന് മുൻഗണന നൽകുന്ന നിയമങ്ങൾക്കായിരിക്കും മേൽക്കൈ. പൊതു സ്വഭാവമുള്ള ഹൈന്ദവ ആരാധനാലയങ്ങൾ എല്ലാ വിഭാഗം ഹിന്ദുക്കൾക്കുമായി തുറന്നു കൊടുക്കാൻ നിർദ്ദേശിക്കുന്ന നിയമങ്ങൾ പാലിക്കാൻ മതവിഭാഗങ്ങൾ ബാധ്യസ്ഥരാണ്.

5. പൊതുതാൽപ്പര്യ ഹർജികളുടെ പരിധി

ഒരു മതവിഭാഗത്തിൽ പെടാത്ത വ്യക്തിക്ക് ആ വിഭാഗത്തിന്റെ ആചാരങ്ങളെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യാൻ സാധാരണഗതിയിൽ അവകാശമില്ല. എന്നാൽ, മതത്തിന്റെ പേരിൽ ഗുരുതരമായ മനുഷ്യാവകാശ ലംഘനങ്ങൾ നടക്കുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കിൽ കോടതിക്ക് ഇടപെടാവുന്നതാണ്.

പശ്ചാത്തലം

 * 2006: ശബരിമലയിൽ 10-നും 50-നും ഇടയിൽ പ്രായമുള്ള സ്ത്രീകൾക്ക് പ്രവേശനം അനുവദിക്കണമെന്ന് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ട് ഹർജി ഫയൽ ചെയ്തു.

 * 2018: സുപ്രീം കോടതിയുടെ അഞ്ചംഗ ബെഞ്ച് സ്ത്രീപ്രവേശനം അനുവദിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് വിധി പുറപ്പെടുവിച്ചു.

 * 2019: ഈ വിധിക്കെതിരെയുള്ള പുനഃപരിശോധനാ ഹർജികൾ പരിഗണിച്ച കോടതി, മതസ്വാതന്ത്ര്യവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട വിശാലമായ ഭരണഘടനാ ചോദ്യങ്ങൾ ഒൻപതംഗ ബെഞ്ചിന്റെ തീരുമാനത്തിന് വിട്ടു.

നിലവിൽ ഈ ഒൻപതംഗ ബെഞ്ച് പരിഗണിക്കുന്ന നിയമപരമായ ചോദ്യങ്ങൾ ശബരിമല വിധിയിൽ നിർണ്ണായകമാകും. ഏപ്രിൽ 7-ന് കോടതി ഈ വിഷയത്തിൽ വീണ്ടും വാദം കേൾക്കും.


2026 ഫെബ്രുവരി 15, ഞായറാഴ്‌ച

The Supreme Court 9-judge bench will commence hearing of the issues referred in the Sabarimala review on April 7, 2026. The hearing is proposed to be concluded on April 22.

The Supreme Court 9-judge bench will commence hearing of the issues referred in the Sabarimala review on April 7, 2026. The hearing is proposed to be concluded on April 22.

The composition of the 9-judge bench will be notified by the Chief Justice of India separately through an administrative order. 

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the orders today for the listing of the reference before the 9-judge bench.  

The parties supporting the review of the Sabarimala judgment will make arguments from April 7 to April 9. The parties opposing the review are given the dates from April 14-16 for their arguments. The rejoinder submissions will be on April 21, and the hearings are expected to be concluded on April 22.

Today, the 3-judge bench was dealing with the batch of review petitions and writ petitions arising out of the Court's September 2018 judgment, which allowed women of menstruating age to enter into the Lord Ayyappa temple. Listed alongwith these were petitions relating to the issues of Muslim women's entry in Dargah/mosques, entry of Parsi women in Fire Temples if they have married a non-Parsi, validity of the practices of excommunication and Female Genital Mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Central Government was supporting the review of the judgment.

Background

In November, 2018, the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'. Then CJI Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud constituted the majority, while lone woman judge on the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented.

The judgment of the CJI held that Lord Ayyappa devotees will not constitute a separate religious denomination. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship(Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965, which prohibited entry of women in Sabarimala, was also struck down as unconstitutional. Assailing this decision, a bunch of review petitions and writ petitions later came to be filed.

On November 14, 2019, a 5-judge bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi observed by a 3:2 majority that certain issues in the Sabarimala review were common to the pending cases concerning women entry in Mosques, validity of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community and the right of Parsi women who had married outside community to enter Fire Temples.

It decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices. It was expressed that the issue whether Court can interfere in essential practices of religion needed examination by larger bench. The minority comprised of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice RF Nariman, who dissented noting that the issues of Parsi women and Muslim women were not before the Sabarimala bench and hence the matters could not be tagged.

In January, 2020, the Court notified the constitution of a 9-judge bench to consider the larger issues. It comprised then CJI SA Bobde, Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageshwara Rao, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, S Abdul Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant (now CJI). In February, the 9-judge bench held that the reference was maintainable and questions of law could be referred to a larger bench in review. It framed 7 issues for consideration:

1. What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

2. What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?

3. Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India apart from public order, morality and health?

4. What is the scope and extent of the word 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?

5. What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

6. What is the meaning of expression "Sections of Hindus" occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?

7. Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?

In February, 2023, a Constitution Bench referred the question of the validity of the practice of excommunication prevalent among the Dawoodi Bohras to the nine-Judge Bench constituted to review the 2018 Sabarimala judgement.

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-sabarimala-review-9-judge-bench-reference-dawoodi-bohra-parsi-muslim-women-entry-dargah-fire-temple-523254