Supreme Court Sabarimala reference hearing and religious rights
Source:Indian Express ↗
Why It Matters
This hearing addresses a foundational constitutional debate: the hierarchy between religious denomination rights (Article 26) and individual fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 21). The final verdict will definitively interpret 'constitutional morality', the Essential Religious Practices doctrine, and the state's role in initiating social reform within religious spheres, creating crucial jurisprudence for UPSC Polity and Social Justice.
Summary
The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench has commenced the seventh day of the Sabarimala reference hearing, examining the complex intersection of fundamental rights, religious freedom, and state intervention. Deliberations focused heavily on whether religious denominations' rights to manage their own affairs under Article 26 can bypass the individual right to equality and non-discrimination. Senior advocates argued over the scope of "constitutional morality," the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, and the State's mandate under Article 25(2)(b) to ensure social welfare and reform by opening Hindu religious institutions to all classes. The outcome will set a monumental precedent on gender justice and the boundaries of judicial review in matters of theology and religious custom.
Key Points
- A nine-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench led by CJI Surya Kant is hearing the Sabarimala reference to determine the interplay between individual religious freedom (Article 25) and religious denomination rights (Article 26).
- A core constitutional issue is whether denomination rights to manage religious affairs are subject to broader constitutional morality and Part III fundamental rights like gender equality.
- The hearings heavily analyzed Article 25(2)(b), exploring the state's power to throw open Hindu religious institutions for social welfare and reform versus the essential religious practices (ERP) of specific denominations.
- Review petitioners argued that courts should not act as ecclesiastical bodies to determine theological validity, asserting that 'religion existed before the Constitution'.
- The bench noted that the State represents the will of the people and holds the authority to mandate social reform if a religious practice is considered a 'social evil' or deeply discriminatory.
Important Terms
Article 25
Guarantees all persons freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. It is subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
UPSC context
GS Paper II/Polity; tests the balance between individual religious freedom and state-led social reforms.
Article 26
Grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion and own property. Unlike Article 25, it is not explicitly subject to other fundamental rights.
UPSC context
GS Paper II/Polity; central to debates on denominational autonomy versus individual rights in the Sabarimala case.
Article 25(2)(b)
Empowers the State to make laws for social welfare and reform, specifically opening Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
UPSC context
GS Paper II/Social Justice; key provision used by courts to override discriminatory religious customs in favor of inclusion.
Constitutional Morality
A judicial doctrine emphasizing adherence to core constitutional values—justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—rather than prevailing societal norms or popular morality when interpreting fundamental rights.
UPSC context
GS Paper II/Judiciary; a frequently tested concept regarding transformative constitutionalism and judicial review of traditions.
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine
A judicial test originating from the Shirur Mutt case (1954) to identify practices integral to a religion. Only essential practices receive constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26.
UPSC context
GS Paper II/Polity; tests the judiciary's role as an arbiter of religious theology and the limits of secular intervention.
Article 14
Mandates that the State shall not deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws. It prohibits arbitrary discrimination by the State.
UPSC context
GS Paper II/Fundamental Rights; the bedrock for challenging gender-based exclusions and ensuring social equality in religious spaces.
Travancore Devaswom Board
An autonomous statutory body that manages over 1,200 temples in Kerala, including Sabarimala. It was created under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.
UPSC context
GS Paper II/Governance; relevant for understanding the administration of religious endowments and the State's role in temple management.
Article 32
Grants the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. B.R. Ambedkar described it as the heart and soul of the Constitution.
UPSC context
GS Paper II/Judiciary; the mechanism through which public interest litigations (PILs) like the Sabarimala case reach the apex court.
Prelims Trap
"Article 25(2)(b) empowers the State to throw open all public religious institutions to all classes."
Article 25(2)(b) explicitly empowers the State to throw open "Hindu religious institutions" (which includes Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist), not institutions of all religions.
Static Concepts Connected
What is the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine?
- Origin: Coined by the Supreme Court in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case to define the scope of religious freedom.
- Core Principle: Only practices that are central, fundamental, and integral to a religion receive constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26.
- Judicial Authority: The Supreme Court acts as the ultimate arbiter to decide whether a specific practice is 'essential' or merely secular/optional.
How do Article 25 and Article 26 differ in their constitutional limitations?
- Nature of Right: Article 25 protects individual freedom of religion, while Article 26 protects the collective rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
- Part III Subordination: Both are subject to public order, morality, and health. However, Article 25 is explicitly subject to "other provisions of this Part" (Fundamental Rights), whereas Article 26 is not.
Cross-Topic Patterns
UCC and Article 25(2)(b) social reform
The State's power to reform Hindu religious practices under Art 25(2)(b) parallels the constitutional push for a Uniform Civil Code (Art 44), testing the limits of state intervention in religious affairs.
Constitutional Morality vs Traditional Customs
The Sabarimala debate mirrors the Navtej Johar and Joseph Shine judgments, where the Court prioritized "Constitutional Morality" and individual dignity over majoritarian social customs and traditional morality.
Expect a 2026 prelims question contrasting Article 25(1)'s subordination to Part III rights against Article 26's denomination rights.
Linked PYQs · 4
Linked PYQs · 4
- 2021MainsGS2
‘Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions.
- 2025MainsGS2
"Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike...." In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India.
- 2024MainsGS2
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
- 2024MainsGS1
Distinguish between gender equality, gender equity and women's empowerment. Why is it important to take gender concerns into account in programme design and implementation?
