The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, emphasized that while courts cannot interfere in core religious affairs, the State has the authority to intervene when religious practices affect secular activities. This ruling came during hearings on the Sabarimala case, which centers on the entry of menstruating women into the Kerala shrine. The nine-judge bench highlighted the distinction between the autonomy of religious practices and the necessity of maintaining public order. Justice BV Nagarathna noted that while religious rituals can be conducted freely, they should not impede civic life, stating, 'You do your religious activity, but not by blocking the roads.'

The court's observations connect to Article 25(2)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which allows State regulation of secular activities related to religion. The bench also addressed the importance of maintaining constitutional neutrality during discussions of different religions. Arguments presented during the hearings revealed a tension between the rights to individual religious freedom under Article 25 and the collective rights of religious denominations under Article 26.

The ongoing proceedings are expected to have significant implications for religious practices across India, especially regarding the balance between individual freedoms and the collective rights of religious groups. This case follows the Supreme Court's 2018 decision that permitted women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple, challenging longstanding exclusionary practices.