Sabarimala Reference Hearing Update: Judicial Review vs Determination

Judicial Review vs Judicial Determination in Sabarimala Case

The latest hearing in the Sabarimala case revealed significant insights into the distinctions of judicial review and judicial determination. Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated that while aspects such as faith are state of mind and inherently subjective, they can nonetheless be subjected to judicial determination within certain contexts. He articulated that the determination of what constitutes faith is justiciable, although courts typically refrain from making value judgments on such matters.

Justice Bagchi referred to established principles in the Evidence Act, noting that states of mind regarding honesty or dishonesty have historically been points of judicial determination. His remarks reaffirm that while courts may evaluate certain elements surrounding faith, they do so with an understanding that not all aspects can be judged on their merits during a review.

This case continues to draw attention not only for its implications for the Sabarimala temple issue but also for broader concerns regarding religious freedoms and the extent to which the judiciary may intervene in matters of faith. Legal practitioners should note this differentiation as it may reshape arguments in ongoing and future cases dealing with religious rights and freedoms.