Sabarimala hearing: Should judges rise above their religious perceptions when examining matters of conscience, SC judge asks

The Supreme Court connected Friday (April 17, 2026) sought a clarification from elder advocator and jurist Rajeev Dhavan whether judges, functioning arsenic a law court, indispensable soar supra their ain idiosyncratic spiritual consciousness portion called connected to analyse matters of state of conscience.

The question came from Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, who is simply a subordinate of the nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant proceeding the Sabarimala reappraisal lawsuit chiefly connected the grade to which courts could judicially reappraisal spiritual practices, and whether an “inquisitorial” scrutiny would beryllium a breach of Article 25 (freedom of conscience and escaped profession, signifier and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (right to negociate spiritual affairs).

“You said state of conscience has a precise wide amplification. Are you hinting that arsenic judges, arsenic a law court, religion and conscience cannot beryllium equated arsenic religion whitethorn beryllium idiosyncratic to me, but past erstwhile I person to judge, I person to emergence supra that spiritual consciousness to a level wherever I equilibrium it with law provisions and spot the larger representation emerging from it?” Justice Amanullah asked Mr. Dhavan.