The Supreme Court’s ongoing hearings in the landmark Sabarimala reference case took a significant turn on 5^th May, 2026, with strong observations emerging on the issue of exclusion faced by Parsi Zoroastrian women who marry outside the community. A nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, is currently examining seven broad constitutional questions connected to religious freedoms and denominational rights in India.

The observations came during hearings examining broader constitutional questions relating to religious freedom and denominational rights. Senior Advocate Darius Khambata made detailed submissions on behalf of a Parsi Zoroastrian woman, who married a Hindu man and subsequently faced exclusion from sections of the community, despite continuing to practise and believe in the Zoroastrian faith.

Khambata argued that marriage cannot become grounds for depriving a woman of her religious identity or constitutional rights. Emphasising that the petitioner remained deeply connected to her faith, Khambata stated, “I am a devotee, I have not forsaken my religion, I am a believer. Just because I have married, that is not a crime.”

Justice BV Nagarathna, while hearing the submissions, questioned why such restrictions appeared to apply selectively to women. “Marriage is the basis of discrimination only if it is a lady?” she asked during the proceedings. Khambata responded that the practice represented a “man-made imposition on an otherwise progressive and great religion,” while also pointing out that similar restrictions are not imposed upon Parsi men who marry outside the community.

The Bench also observed that such selective exclusion appeared discriminatory in nature. Justice Nagarathna remarked that the right to conscience and religion under Article 25 of the Constitution is a birthright and cannot be taken away through marriage. Referring to existing practices where children of Parsi fathers continue to receive recognition within the faith, she further observed that the same principle should logically apply to women as well.

Khambata also presented a wider constitutional argument concerning the balance between individual religious freedom and denominational rights. He argued that Article 26 of the Constitution, which grants rights to religious denominations, cannot override the individual freedoms guaranteed under Article 25. “The two provisions form a compact and must be read together,” Khambata submitted, adding that denominational rights cannot rise above the individual’s freedom of conscience and religion. The Court appeared receptive to this line of reasoning, with Justice Nagarathna observing that Article 26 rights exist because of Article 25 and cannot operate in conflict with it.

The matter continues to draw considerable attention within the community, as the Court’s eventual interpretation could have far-reaching implications on questions of identity, gender equality and religious inclusion. The outcome of the hearings is expected to impact several faith-based customs across communities. While no final ruling has yet been delivered, the hearings have already reignited debate on whether longstanding customs concerning interfaith marriages can withstand constitutional scrutiny in modern India.

Darius J. Khambata, Senior Counsel, LL.M. (Harvard), practises before the Supreme Court, Bombay High Court and tribunals across India. A former Advocate General for Maharashtra and Additional Solicitor General of India, he is widely respected for his expertise in constitutional, commercial, securities and national/global arbitration matters.