The Supreme Court of India resumed hearings in the Sabarimala temple case, asserting its jurisdiction to review whether certain religious practices are superstitious. A nine-judge Constitution bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, emphasized that it would not accept the argument that the legislature holds the 'last word' on such matters. The court highlighted its role in testing practices against constitutional principles, even when rooted in faith. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that it is the legislature's responsibility to identify and reform superstitious practices under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. The bench questioned this perspective, suggesting that the court could intervene on grounds of public order and morality, even if the legislature remains silent. Justice Nagarathna stated that the court should interpret essential religious practices through the philosophy of the respective religion, balancing it against public health and morality. The ongoing discussions reflect the complex relationship between law and religion in India.