8 May 2026·The Hindu

Entertaining petitions on religious practices can have far-reaching consequences, says SC

In this note

1. At a Glance

SC (nine-judge Bench) warns: courts entertaining every petition on religious practice risks "flood gates" of litigation against India's religion-society fabric [1].
Arises in Sabarimala Review / Reference case, testing scope of judicial review over essential religious practices (ERP) under Arts. 25–26 [1][2].
Core UPSC angle: Essential Religious Practices doctrine, Art. 25 (individual freedom) vs Art. 26 (denominational autonomy), judicial restraint vs fundamental rights.

Nine-judge Constitution Bench, CJI Surya Kant + 8 judges, concluded 16 days hearing, reserved judgment on Sabarimala Reference (Thu, reported 8 May 2026) [1][2].
Justice B.V. Nagarathna: mass petitioning against temple opening/closure etc. if courts intervene routinely in faith matters [1].
Justice M.M. Sundresh: entertaining ERP challenges on fundamental-rights grounds may "open flood gates" [1].

2018: SC 5-judge Bench (4:1), Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala — allowed entry of women (10-50 yrs) into Sabarimala temple, struck down Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965 [2].
2019: Review petitions — SC (3:2) referred larger questions to 9-judge Bench (not staying 2018 verdict), covering overlapping issues: Parsi women entry into Fire Temple, Dawoodi Bohra FGM, Muslim women mosque entry [2].
7 April 2026: 9-judge Bench begins final hearings on the Reference [2].
May 2026: Hearings concluded (16 days), judgment reserved [1][2].

Case: Sabarimala Reference (arising from Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. review).
Bench strength: 9 judges — CJI Surya Kant, Nagarathna, Sundresh, Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, Joymalya Bagchi [1].
Constitutional provisions: Article 25 (freedom of conscience, practice/propagation of religion), Article 26 (denominational right to manage religious affairs).
Doctrine at issue: Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test, judicially evolved (not in Constitution text), used since 1954 Shirur Mutt case to decide what religious practice merits Art. 25/26 protection.
Linked cases bundled in Reference: Parsi women's Fire Temple entry post inter-faith marriage; Dawoodi Bohra female genital cutting/FGM; Muslim women's mosque entry [1].

Legal/Constitutional: Tension between Art. 14/15/21 individual rights and Art. 25/26 group religious autonomy; question of judicially manageable standards for "religion" vs "essential practice" [1].
Social: Gender-based exclusion in religious spaces (Sabarimala, Fire Temple, mosques) vs preserving religious identity of denominations.
Ethical/Governance: Judicial restraint principle — SC self-cautioning against becoming arbiter of theology; separation of powers between faith and constitutional courts [1].
Historical: Traces to Shirur Mutt (1954) origin of ERP test; subsequent inconsistent application (Sabarimala, triple talaq, Sati precedents) shows doctrinal uncertainty.
Administrative: Floodgates concern — implications for judicial capacity/docket if courts become default forum for religious disputes.

7 April 2026: 9-judge Bench commences substantive hearings on Sabarimala Reference [2].
8 May 2026 (reported): Bench concludes 16 days of hearing, reserves judgment; Nagarathna and Sundresh make oral observations on floodgates risk [1][2].

ERP doctrine judicially originated in Shirur Mutt case, 1954.
Sabarimala 2018 verdict: 4:1 majority, Justice Indu Malhotra dissented.
2019 review order: 3:2 split referred questions to larger (9-judge) Bench.
Current 9-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant.
Sabarimala Reference bundles Parsi Fire Temple, Dawoodi Bohra FGM, Muslim mosque-entry issues together.
Rule struck down in 2018: Rule 3(b), Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
Relevant Articles: 25 (individual religious freedom), 26 (denominational rights), also intersect with Art. 14, 15, 21.
Hearings on Reference began 7 April 2026, concluded after 16 sitting days.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna authored dissent-leaning observations on India as a "civilisation" bound to religion.

GS-II: Indian Constitution — fundamental rights (Art. 25, 26), judiciary's role, separation of powers, judicial review limits.
GS-I: Salient features of Indian society — diversity, religion-society relationship.
Sample stems:
"Discuss the evolution and limitations of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine in adjudicating disputes between individual rights and religious freedom in India."
"Should constitutional courts continue to be the forum for resolving disputes over religious practices? Critically examine with reference to the Sabarimala Reference."
"Examine the tension between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution in light of recent Supreme Court observations on gender and religious autonomy."

Shirur Mutt case (1954) — origin of ERP doctrine.
Triple Talaq judgment (2017) — parallel gender-religion rights case.
Sati Prevention Act & related religious-practice legislation — legislative vs judicial intervention.
Uniform Civil Code debate — broader religion-law interface.
Freedom of religion vs Article 21 (dignity) — jurisprudential balancing.
Doctrine of judicial restraint / separation of powers — institutional design theme.
Right to Equality (Art. 14/15) vs religious autonomy — comparative rights framework.

Confusing 2018 Sabarimala verdict (5-judge, 4:1) with 2026 nine-judge Reference judgment (reserved, not yet delivered).
Assuming ERP doctrine is constitutionally codified — it is judge-made, from Shirur Mutt (1954).
Mixing up Article 25 (individual) and Article 26 (denominational) applicability.
Treating Sabarimala Reference as limited to Hindu temple entry — it bundles Parsi and Muslim/Dawoodi Bohra issues too.
Assuming a final verdict exists as of reporting date — judgment was only reserved, not pronounced.