Dissent is a word that is used rarely in India by the judiciary. Though India has had its fair share of landmark dissents in the past yet as a legal system we are used to accommodating than disagreeing. The case analysis involves one of the most iconic dissents of this decade by Justice Indu Malhotra in the Sabarimala Judgement. Though the nation rose to the achievement of women entering the temple and furthering of equality Justice Malhotra being the only woman panelist on the bench held that religion cannot be equated with the principles of fundamental rights as religion as a concept itself is very subjective. The case analysis below indicates the arguments presented by the petitioners’ side questioning the validity of the practice and holding it unconstitutional due to the infringement on fundamental rights. The analysis goes on to explain the dissent and questions the judgement on the maintainability of petition under Article 32. Later it explains the role of courts in matters concerning religion and argues that the said practice cannot be evaluated basis Part III of the constitution. It concludes with the essence of Article 25 and deals with the aftermath of the judgement while explaining why we need to investigate matters of religion outside courts.