"Religious freedom under Article 25 and 26 cannot be used to override the constitutional guarantee of gender equality." Discuss with reference to recent developments in India.

Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and religion only "subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III" — the text itself subordinates religious practice to the equality guarantees of Articles 14, 15 and 17 [1]. Recent judicial and legislative developments confirm this hierarchy, even as social resistance to it persists.

Constitutional design subordinates practice to equality

• Article 25(1) is expressly limited by other fundamental rights, so a practice violating equality cannot claim immunity [1].
• Article 26 protects a denomination's autonomy in "matters of religion", but is likewise subject to public order, morality and health; it confers group rights, not a shield against Part III [1].
• Article 25(2)(b) permits the State to throw open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections, showing the framers' reformist intent [1].

Judicial trend affirming gender equality

• Sabarimala (2018) struck down the exclusion of women aged 10–50 as violative of equality and constitutional morality, rejecting exclusion as an essential religious practice.
• Since 7 April 2026, a nine-judge Constitution Bench under CJI Surya Kant has heard the Sabarimala reference, extending the question across faiths — mosque and dargah entry, Parsi fire temples, excommunication [2].
• Shayara Bano (2017) held instant triple talaq unprotected by Article 25, being neither essential nor equality-compliant.

Legislative and executive reinforcement

• The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 voided talaq-e-biddat and secured subsistence and custody rights, converting a judicial verdict into enforceable protection [3].

Continuing friction

• Courts adjudicate essential religious practices, inviting the criticism that judges arbitrate theology.
• Informal clerical authority — such as recent directives in Kerala discouraging women's presence at public religious celebrations — operates outside justiciable space, where only social reform, not litigation, works.

Constitutional morality, not majoritarian custom, is the touchstone: faith retains full protection, but not the power to exclude. The way forward lies in the pending nine-judge ruling laying down a cross-faith test, complemented by internal reform led by women within communities — advancing both Article 15's promise and SDG-5 on gender equality.