The Constitution enters the sanctum

Judiciary, Religion & Constitutional Adjudication — UPSC Study Note

1. At a Glance

• Two landmark Madras High Court judgments (2026) — one on the Thiruparankundram Deepathoon ritual and another on the Thenkalai sect's rights at Kanchipuram's Varadaraja Perumal temple — have renewed focus on the judiciary's role in religious disputes. [2]
• Constitutional courts are not outsiders to religious matters: Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution explicitly empower courts to examine whether religious practices align with fundamental rights. [1]
• The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine — a judicially created test — is the primary tool courts use to determine if a contested practice is constitutionally protected. [1]
• UPSC relevance is high: this topic bridges GS-II (Polity/Judiciary), GS-I (Society/Religion), and GS-IV (Ethics); recent SC and HC judgments make it live in 2025-26.

2. Why in the News

• Thiruparankundram Deepathoon case (January 2026): Madras HC's Madurai Division Bench upheld a single judge's order allowing the lighting of a sacred lamp (Deepathoon) atop Thiruparankundram hills, ruling that the state cannot ban a long-standing ritual merely to prevent potential communal tension — "the administration must facilitate rituals rather than use security as an excuse to block them." The bench noted the spot belongs to the Lord Subramania Swamy Temple and directed consultation with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). [3]
• Thenkalai sect vs. Varadaraja Perumal temple, Kanchipuram: Madras HC ruled that an individual's right to worship under Article 25 cannot override a sect's denominational rights under Article 26, upholding the Thenkalai sect's exclusive right to lead hymn recitations (Adhyapaka Mirasi). [2]
• The article by Manuraj Shunmugasundaram (DMK spokesperson, advocate) and Swetha Sethubaskaran (advocate, Madras HC), published in The Hindu, 12 February 2026, contextualises these within the longer arc of judicial intervention in religious affairs. [4]
• Concurrently, a 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (2026) is examining foundational questions on the Sabarimala reference, including the validity of Parsi excommunications and gender-based exclusions in religious spaces. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

4. Core Static Facts

Constitutional Articles:

• Article 25 — Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion (subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights); State may regulate secular activities associated with religious practice.
• Article 26 — Every religious denomination or section thereof has the right to: (a) establish and maintain institutions; (b) manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) own and acquire property; (d) administer such property.
• Article 17 — Abolition of Untouchability (enables state intervention in discriminatory temple practices).
• Article 13 — Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void.

Key Legal Doctrine:

• Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test — judicially created; only practices "integral" or "essential" to a religion/sect attract protection under Articles 25–26. Originated in Shirur Mutt (1954).

Key Legislation:

Key Cases:

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Tension between Art. 25 and Art. 26: Individual right to worship (Art. 25) vs. denominational right to manage affairs (Art. 26) — courts must balance both; Thenkalai judgment tilts toward Art. 26 in intra-temple ritual disputes. [2]
• ERP test remains contested: critics argue courts are ill-equipped to determine what is "essential" to a religion — a theological question, not a legal one.
• State's power under Art. 25(2): The state may (a) regulate secular activities associated with religious practice; (b) provide social welfare and reform. This clause legitimised temple entry laws.
• The 9-judge Bench (Sabarimala reference, 2026) is set to provide definitive guidance on the scope of ERP, potentially overriding decades of inconsistent HC rulings. [1]

Social / Historical

• Pre-constitutional era: Temple entry was a civil rights issue, not a constitutional one — Privy Council heard the Kamudhi temple case (1908) purely as a property/civil rights dispute. [4]
• Post-1947 shift: The Constitution transformed temples from private spaces to venues where Fundamental Rights operate — dismantling the argument that courts cannot intervene.
• Caste dimension: Temple entry movement predates the Constitution; B.R. Ambedkar's Kalaram Temple Satyagraha (1930) and Vaikom Satyagraha (1924-25) were precursors to legal reform.
• Growing number of sect-based disputes (Vaishnava sub-sects, Shaiva traditions) reflects intra-religious fragmentation being mediated by courts.

Administrative / Governance

• State governments manage Hindu temples through Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) departments — a source of controversy because this mechanism does not apply to other religions.
• The Thiruparankundram case shows tension between state law enforcement using "security" pretexts to avoid communal conflict and the constitutional obligation to facilitate religious practice. [3]
• ASI's jurisdiction over certain protected temple sites adds a further layer of administrative complexity.

Geopolitical / Historical

• The Privy Council era (pre-1947) shows that even colonial courts adjudicated temple disputes — the constitutional transition merely shifted jurisdiction inward.
• The Places of Worship Act, 1991 represents a political-legislative attempt to freeze sectarian disputes, but the Ayodhya exception and subsequent challenges (e.g., Gyanvapi, Mathura) have relit judicial fire on religious site questions.

Ethical / Governance

• Courts walking into "the sanctum" raises the question: who decides what is sacred? — a governance dilemma with no clean answer.
• Judicial interpretation of scripture/tradition risks judicial overreach into theological terrain; simultaneously, judicial abstention would leave minority sects and lower castes without remedy.
• Selective state intervention (HR&CE applies mainly to Hindu temples) raises equal treatment concerns under Article 14.

6. Recent Developments (Last 12–18 Months)

• January 2026: Madras HC Madurai Division Bench upholds order allowing Deepathoon lamp-lighting atop Thiruparankundram hills; directs ASI consultation; state's security-pretext argument rejected. [3]
• Early 2026: Madras HC rules on Thenkalai sect's Adhyapaka Mirasi rights at Kanchipuram Varadaraja Perumal temple — Art. 26 sect rights take precedence over Art. 25 individual rights in ritual management. [2]
• May 2026: 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserves judgment in the Sabarimala reference — examines validity of Parsi excommunications, gender exclusions, and the outer limits of Art. 25/26. [1]
• Ongoing: Increasing PIL litigation before High Courts on temple entry, ritual rights, and sectarian disputes across Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh.

7. Prelims Hooks

1. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and right to profess, practise, and propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, and health.
2. Article 26 guarantees every religious denomination (not just individuals) the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
3. The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test was first formulated by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case, 1954.
4. The Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 removed the prohibition on temple entry for Scheduled Caste persons in Tamil Nadu.
5. In Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018), the Supreme Court ruled (4:1) that the exclusion of women aged 10–50 from Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional.
6. The Sabarimala judgment was referred to a 9-judge Constitution Bench in 2019 for broader constitutional questions.
7. Privy Council adjudicated the Kamudhi temple case (Sankaralinga Nadan vs Raja Rajeswara Dorai, 1908) on Nadar community's temple entry rights — pre-Constitution.
8. The Thiruparankundram Deepathoon case (2026): Madras HC held the spot belongs to Lord Subramania Swamy Temple; directed consultation with Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). [3]
9. Thenkalai sect won the right to lead hymn recitations (Adhyapaka Mirasi) at Kanchipuram Varadaraja Perumal temple — Madras HC upheld Art. 26 over Art. 25. [2]
10. Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to make laws providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes of Hindus.
11. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 freezes the religious character of all places of worship as of 15 August 1947 — excluding Ram Janmabhoomi.
12. The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 gives the state government supervisory authority over Hindu religious and charitable endowments — no equivalent exists for mosques or churches.
13. The ERP test asks whether a practice is "integral" to the religion — if not essential, the state may regulate or restrict it without violating Art. 25/26.

8. Mains Relevance

Plausible Mains Question Stems:

1. "The judiciary's intervention in religious disputes reflects both the strengths and the limits of constitutional adjudication." Critically examine with reference to the Essential Religious Practices doctrine and recent High Court judgments. (GS-II, 250 words)
2. "Articles 25 and 26 create an inherent tension between individual religious liberty and denominational autonomy." Analyse this tension in light of the Sabarimala reference and the Thenkalai sect judgment. (GS-II)
3. "Temple entry legislation in independent India was a constitutional revolution in slow motion." Trace the evolution from the Privy Council era to the present. (GS-I, 150 words)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

1. Confusing Art. 25 and Art. 26 scope: Art. 25 is for individuals; Art. 26 is for religious denominations/sects. The Thenkalai judgment turns precisely on this distinction — a common MCQ trap.
2. ERP test origin: Many aspirants attribute the ERP test to the Sabarimala (2018) case. It was actually first articulated in Shirur Mutt (1954) — Sabarimala merely applied it.
3. Madras Temple Entry Act year: The Act is 1947, not 1950 — it pre-dates the Constitution; this is frequently confused.
4. Places of Worship Act, 1991 coverage: The Act excludes Ram Janmabhoomi explicitly; aspirants often assume it covers all sites. Also, it does not cover disputes about internal ritual practices — only the religious character/denomination of a site.
5. HR&CE applicability: The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act applies only to Hindu religious institutions — not to mosques, churches, or gurudwaras. Conflating this with a neutral/secular regulatory regime is a common error in GS-II answers.