The Supreme Court of India recently clarified it would not revisit its 1995 ruling, which declared "Hinduism is a way of life," during ongoing hearings concerning the entry of women into the Sabarimala Ayyappan Temple in Kerala. This statement from the apex court outlines the specific legal scope for the current review petitions, directing focus towards the doctrine of essential religious practices rather than a broader re-evaluation of Hinduism's definition.

The 1995 judgment, delivered in the landmark Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India case, primarily addressed the constitutional validity of the acquisition of land in Ayodhya. Within this ruling, a bench of the Supreme Court observed that "Hinduism is a way of life of the people in the region and not a religion." This specific judicial observation has been cited in various legal contexts over the years.

Currently, a batch of review petitions is before the Supreme Court challenging its September 28, 2018, verdict. The 2018 ruling had lifted the traditional ban on women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappan Temple, asserting that the custom violated constitutional principles of equality. Petitioners seeking a review of this verdict contend that the temple's centuries-old tradition is an "essential religious practice" protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. These articles guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to practice religion, as well as the freedom to manage religious affairs for denominations.

During the recent arguments, the Supreme Court bench underscored that the observation from the 1995 Ayodhya judgment was made within a distinct factual and legal context. The bench emphasized that the core legal question in the Sabarimala matter remains whether the exclusion of women constitutes an 'essential religious practice' that can be constitutionally upheld, or if it infringes upon fundamental rights related to equality and non-discrimination. The court indicated that its primary task is to apply the "essentiality test" to the specific customs challenged in the Sabarimala case.

By choosing not to re-examine the 'Hinduism is a way of life' pronouncement, the Supreme Court has defined the boundaries of its current deliberation. This approach signals the court's intention to maintain the Sabarimala review as separate from wider philosophical or definitional discussions about the nature of Hinduism. Legal arguments will therefore continue to concentrate on the precise interpretation of constitutional rights concerning religious freedom versus gender equality, specifically focusing on the essential nature of the contested practice within the Ayyappan faith.

The hearings in these complex review petitions are ongoing. A final verdict from the Supreme Court on these significant constitutional questions is awaited, which will carry substantial implications for religious practices, gender rights, and the scope of judicial review in matters of faith across India.