New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday pulled up advocate Ashwini Upadhyay during the ongoing hearing in the Sabarimala reference case, asking him to confine his arguments to the core legal issues under consideration. The observations came from a nine-judge Constitution Bench, which expressed concern over what it described as wide-ranging and irrelevant submissions.
Bench cautions against irrelevant arguments
During the proceedings, Upadhyay attempted to expand the scope of arguments by discussing broader themes such as “dharma” and religion. According to reports, he stated that “dharma is greater than religion” and linked historical divisions of the country to denominational conflicts.
The bench, however, repeatedly intervened, emphasising the need to stay focused on the legal questions at hand. Justice Mahadevan cautioned the counsel against straying into unrelated areas, remarking that such discussions were not relevant to the matter being examined.
“You are going beyond the subject being discussed by everyone of us… Confine yourself to the point in issue,” the judge observed, underlining the court’s intent to keep the proceedings structured and legally grounded.
Court stresses clarity and relevance
As the arguments continued, Upadhyay raised concerns about the limitations of interpreting constitutional concepts in English, stating that terms such as “Samvidhan” and “dharma” do not have precise equivalents in the language. He further argued that all religions are not the same and sought to rely on Hindu religious texts to support his claims.
At this point, the bench again stepped in. Justice Amanullah halted the submissions, while Justice Nagarathna asked the counsel to clearly state his legal argument.
“What is your submission?” she asked, seeking clarity amid the broader philosophical assertions being made in court.
Responding, Upadhyay reiterated that “dharma and religion are not the same” and maintained that religious doctrines differ significantly. However, the bench remained unconvinced about the relevance of these arguments to the constitutional issues under consideration.
Judges intervene to maintain focus
The exchange grew sharper as the hearing progressed. Chief Justice Surya Kant eventually stepped in, indicating that the allotted time for the counsel had concluded. Other judges also voiced concern over the nature of the submissions.
Justice Sundresh advised the counsel not to argue in such a manner, while Justice Amanullah firmly stated that the scope of the matter must be respected.
“Absolutely not. You have to understand the scope of the matter,” Justice Amanullah said, reiterating the bench’s stance.
Justice Nagarathna also responded to Upadhyay’s claims, observing that “every religion has its own dharma,” countering the attempt to generalise religious principles.
Defence of Sabarimala practice raised
Before concluding his arguments, Upadhyay defended the traditional practice at the Sabarimala Temple, which restricts the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years. He argued that the restriction was reasonable and rooted in religious beliefs.
He also referred to the concept of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,” suggesting that dharma promotes universal brotherhood, while asserting that not all religions espouse similar ideas.
The bench, however, did not engage further with these arguments, signalling the end of his submissions. “We have heard you,” Justice Sundresh said, closing the exchange.
Ongoing constitutional debate
The hearing marked the ninth day of proceedings in the Sabarimala reference case, which involves significant constitutional questions relating to the interplay between religious freedom and other fundamental rights.
The case has been under scrutiny for years, following earlier verdicts that examined whether the temple’s entry restrictions violate constitutional guarantees such as equality and non-discrimination. The current proceedings before the nine-judge bench are focused on larger questions concerning the scope of judicial review in matters of religion and essential religious practices.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s sharp observations during the hearing highlight its effort to maintain focus on constitutional principles and legal reasoning, rather than allowing proceedings to drift into broad philosophical or ideological debates. As the case continues, the bench is expected to address critical questions that could have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of religious freedom under the Constitution.