On Friday, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a petition that sought directives for the Central and State Governments to combat the issues of superstition, sorcery, and similar practices.

The petition had urged the Court to mandate specific measures to eradicate these societal problems. However, a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra ruled that addressing superstition fundamentally requires educational reforms rather than judicial intervention. The Court emphasized that such legislative and policy matters fall within the purview of Parliament.

In past Supreme Court cases, the judiciary has maintained a cautious stance on matters involving traditional and cultural practices, often deferring to legislative bodies. For instance, in the case of *Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan* (1997), the Court established guidelines to address sexual harassment at the workplace, demonstrating that while the judiciary can set standards and provide guidance, comprehensive reform often requires legislative action.

Similarly, in *Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala* (2018), concerning the Sabarimala temple entry issue, the Court recognized the need for legislative review of complex socio-religious practices, reinforcing the principle that the legislature is better suited to address such intricate matters comprehensively.

This judicial restraint underscores a broader principle that while the judiciary can influence and guide societal reforms, fundamental changes in cultural or traditional practices are typically driven by legislative measures and societal education.