In a significant hearing regarding the Sabarimala temple case, the Union government asserted that the Constitution presumes all religious practices to be protected unless they infringe on public order, morality, or health. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that this protection is broader than merely 'essential religious practices' and that challengers must demonstrate any violations. He pointed out that the phrase 'essential religious practices' does not appear in the Constitution, labeling its use as judicial creativity. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, also observed that expressions of faith do not necessarily require rituals, suggesting that a simple act, such as lighting a lamp in a hut, can be as meaningful as traditional practices. Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted that Hinduism encompasses a broader way of life beyond ritualistic observances, reflecting on the concept of 'auto-theism,' which allows individuals to explore their inner conscience freely.