New Delhi, April 22 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharpened its scrutiny of the limits of religious autonomy, asking whether the Constitution can remain a silent spectator if a devout believer is barred from approaching or touching a deity solely on account of birth or lineage, as it heard the reference arising out of the Sabarimala temple entry review. Raising fundamental questions on the interplay between faith, equality and constitutional guarantees, a nine-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant repeatedly returned to a central concern that when practices rooted in faith impose permanent disabilities on believers, does the Constitution step in to correct the imbalance, or must courts defer entirely to denominational autonomy? The bench also included justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi, The line of inquiry emerged during submissions by senior advocate V Giri, appearing for the Thanthri (chief priest) of the Kerala's Sabarimala temple, who argued that the right to worship under Article 25 is not absolute but must align with the essential characteristics of the deity and the manner in which the temple is consecrated and maintained. According to Giri, a believer cannot simultaneously claim devotion to a deity and challenge the foundational practices governing that deity's worship. But the bench appeared unwilling to accept that formulation without testing it against broader constitutional principles. "I go to a temple, my fundamental belief is that he is the Lord, he is my creator. He has created me, right? I am totally devoted. But there, I am told that, because of your birth or your lineage, for certain restrictions, you are not allowed to touch the deity...permanently. Will the constitution not come to the rescue? The argument is there can't be a difference between the creator and his creation," added Justice Amanullah....