During the hearing on April 8, 2026, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant indeed elaborated on the submissions of Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, which focused on the principle of self-identification in religion. [1, 2]
CJI’s Elaboration of the SG’s Submission
The CJI framed the SG’s argument by describing a scenario where an individual’s internal belief defines their religious identity. He noted that if a person follows a certain philosophy or guidance from morning until night, treating a figure as their "supreme being," it is not for others—or the Court—to impose a contrary declaration. [2, 3]
- Core Argument: The SG argued that secular courts lack the "scholarly competence" to determine what is or is not an "essential religious practice" (ERP).
- Self-Definition: The Court reflected on the idea that if a group, such as the followers of Sri Aurobindo, believes their path is a religion, that belief itself carries the ingredients of a religious denomination.
- Judicial Role: Justice Kant's comments suggest that the Court's current focus is on whether a group "carves out" its own religious status through practice and faith, rather than having it bestowed by a "clinical" legal test. [1, 2, 4]
Relevance to the Auroville Case
This discussion directly addresses the 1982 S.P. Mittal ruling, where the majority held that Aurobindonians did not form a religious denomination. [2]
- SG's Submission: The SG urged the Court to move away from the ERP doctrine, which he claimed has no textual basis in the Constitution.
- Potential Shift: By acknowledging the SG’s point that courts should not be "arbiters of scripture," the 9-judge bench is revisiting the exact ground that Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy stood on in his famous dissent. [1, 2]
For followers of "Savitri Era Religion," this development is significant because it prioritises devotee sincerity and pluralistic belief over rigid, court-mandated religious criteria. [2, 5]
- GoogleAI
