During the ongoing hearings regarding women's rights to enter the Sabarimala temple, the Supreme Court of India expressed concerns about the implications of allowing selective acceptance of religious practices. The nine-judge bench, led by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, explored critical constitutional questions related to Articles 25 and 26, particularly regarding what constitutes an 'essential religious practice.' Justice BV Nagarathna highlighted the significance of historical context in interpreting religious freedoms, asserting that the past shapes the present and should not be disregarded. Justice MM Sundresh warned that permitting individuals to reject certain religious practices could lead to a fundamental crisis in the concept of religion itself, potentially resulting in its 'annihilation.' The court is also examining whether the right to enter a temple is a fundamental right and the implications of this for believers and non-believers alike. Advocate Indira Jaisingh, representing two women petitioners, argued that denying entry to women of certain ages violates their rights under Article 25 and constitutes a significant deprivation of their freedoms. The hearings continue as the court navigates the complex interplay between individual rights, religious practices, and constitutional morality.