Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted in the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 12, 2026) that religions must reform or civilisations in which they exist risk stagnation.

In oral submissions made before a nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in the Sabarimala review case hearing, the senior advocate addressed observations that reform must not “hollow out” religion, especially in a civilisation like India.

The senior advocate said the Constitution framers were sure that ushering in reform would not destabilise religion. Freedom of religion was enshrined in the Constitution to protect an individual’s capacity to follow his or her conscience. “Sometimes civilisations are enhanced when there is social reform,” Ms. Guruswamy submitted.

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat said courts should not adjudicate on the basis of public morality, which was nothing but prevailing social prejudices.

“The Constitution was created to ensure that transient social prejudice does not become the measure of rights,” Mr. Farasat said.

Throughout her submissions, Ms. Guruswamy repeatedly invoked the framers’ understanding that constitutional morality and social reform were inseparable from religious freedom in India.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, while making his submissions, referred to Article 13, which held that any laws, including customs, which pre-existed the Constitution and found derogatory of or inconsistent with fundamental rights would be void.

Mr. Hegde said the Constitution protected individual belief and freedom of conscience. But religious practices cannot violate fundamental rights. “Article 13 supplies the bridge between religion and constitutional discipline. A custom that fails the filter does not become protected by being old,” he submitted.