During a Supreme Court hearing on the Sabarimala temple case, the Indian government contended that the Constitution entrusts religious reform to the legislature rather than the judiciary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that allowing courts to reform religious practices could lead to unchecked judicial interference in the internal affairs of various faiths. This assertion was made in response to petitions challenging the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Mehta referenced Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, which he claimed underscores the need for reforms to originate from a legislative body that reflects public consensus. Justice Amanullah expressed concerns about the implications of relying solely on the legislature, suggesting it could lead to majoritarianism. Chief Justice Surya Kant and other justices emphasized the importance of protecting both majority and minority religious practices under constitutional provisions, indicating that the court's role is to ensure that legislative actions align with constitutional principles.