The Supreme Court of India observed on Wednesday that Hinduism is essentially a “way of life,” clarifying that neither temple visits nor the performance of specific rituals are mandatory requirements for an individual to remain a Hindu. The remarks came during the 15th day of a landmark hearing by a nine-judge Constitution bench examining the scope of religious freedom and discrimination across multiple faiths.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, emphasized the personal nature of faith in the Indian context. “Even if an individual lights a lamp inside his hut, it is enough to prove his religion,” the CJI remarked, underscoring that belief is not strictly tied to public or ritualistic displays.
The discussion was sparked by submissions from advocate Dr. G. Mohan Gopal, representing one of the intervenors. Gopal challenged a 1966 legal definition which suggested that a Hindu is someone who accepts the Vedas as the highest authority in all matters of religion and philosophy.
“They never asked me. None of us ever said that,” Gopal argued, questioning whether every person classified as Hindu today truly views the Vedas as the ultimate spiritual authority.
Responding to these concerns, Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted that the non-ritualistic nature of the faith is precisely why it is categorized as a “way of life.” She stated that “nobody can come in the way” of an individual’s personal faith, asserting that temple attendance is not a prerequisite for religious identity.
The nine-judge bench—which includes Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi—is currently grappling with complex questions regarding religious practices and gender equality.
The hearing stems from petitions related to the discrimination against women at religious sites, most notably the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. It also covers the religious practices of other communities, including the Dawoodi Bohras.
The court is treading a fine line between protecting individual rights and preserving religious autonomy. The bench had previously cautioned that if every religious practice were questioned before a constitutional court, “every religion will ‘break'” under the weight of hundreds of petitions.
This ongoing case follows the 2018 landmark verdict where a five-judge bench, in a 4:1 majority, lifted the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. That ruling declared the centuries-old practice illegal and unconstitutional, setting the stage for the current expanded review of how the law interacts with ancient religious traditions.
The hearing remains underway as the court continues to define the boundaries of religious freedom in modern India.
