Can we expect a devotee to follow any age-old practice in today’s era, asks SC

Good enough grounding. Writing the note now.

1. At a Glance

• The Sabarimala Review case before a 9-judge Constitution Bench (CJI Surya Kant) is testing whether courts/believers must accept an "age-old" religious practice uncritically, or subject it to constitutional rationality [S1][S4].
• Core constitutional question: relationship between Article 25 (freedom of conscience, practice, propagation of religion) and Article 26 (freedom of religious denominations to manage own affairs) [S2].
• High UPSC salience: touches Fundamental Rights (Part III), essential religious practices doctrine, judicial review of religious customs, and 66 tagged matters (Parsi fire temple entry, Muslim women's mosque entry, Dawoodi Bohra FGM) [S1][S2].
• Originates from the 2018 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala judgment lifting the ban on entry of menstruating-age women (10–50 years) into Sabarimala [S2].

2. Why in the News

• On Tuesday (21 April 2026, reported 22 April 2026), the SC bench, hearing the Sabarimala review, asked the temple's tantri whether a believer today can be "expected to shed rationality" and follow any age-old practice merely because it is long-standing [S3].
• Justice P.B. Varale posed this to senior advocate V. Giri (for the tantri), while Justice B.V. Nagarathna countered that a believer would not question a long-held, widely followed practice [S3].
• The bench reserved judgment on 14 May 2026 after a 16-day hearing [S1][S2].

3. Background & Evolution

• September 2018: 5-judge bench (4:1) in Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala struck down the Sabarimala temple's exclusion of women aged 10–50 as unconstitutional [S2].
• November 2019: A 5-judge bench referred the review petitions to a larger bench, citing overlapping issues with other faiths (Parsi women marrying outside faith entering fire temples, Dawoodi Bohra FGM, Muslim women's mosque entry) [S1].
• February 2020: A 9-judge bench upheld this reference, framing seven broad questions on religious freedom vs. constitutional morality [S1].
• 7–22 April 2026: Structured hearing schedule — review-supporters (7–9 April), review-opponents (14–16 April), rejoinder (21 April), amicus curiae (22 April) [S1].
• 14 May 2026: Verdict reserved by the CJI Surya Kant-led bench [S1][S2].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional - Tests scope of the "essential religious practices" (ERP) doctrine — who decides what is essential to a religion, courts or religious denominations [S2]. - Examines whether Article 26's denominational autonomy can be limited by Article 14 (equality) given it lacks Article 25's "subject to other provisions" qualifier [S2].

Social - Directly engages gender equality vs. religious customary practice, since the original dispute concerns exclusion of menstruating-age women [S2]. - Raises the tension between individual believer's "rational" autonomy and communal/customary religious conformity, as posed by Justice Varale [S3].

Ethical / Governance - Interrogates constitutional morality as a check on long-standing traditions — whether antiquity of a practice alone justifies its continuance [S3]. - Justice Nagarathna's observation flags judicial caution against second-guessing settled community faith practices [S3].

Historical - Builds on a lineage of ERP-doctrine cases (Shirur Mutt, Durgah Committee lineage) though this note is confined to facts from retrieved sources; underlying trend is from 2018 verdict to 2020 referral to 2026 hearing [S1][S2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 7–9 April 2026: Arguments by parties supporting the review [S1].
• 14–16 April 2026: Arguments by parties opposing the review [S1].
• 21 April 2026: Rejoinder arguments; SC asks tantri's counsel the "rationality vs. age-old practice" question [S1][S3].
• 22 April 2026: Amicus curiae concludes arguments [S1].
• 14 May 2026: Nine-judge bench reserves judgment [S1][S2].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Sabarimala Review is being heard by a 9-judge Constitution Bench, headed by CJI Surya Kant [S1].
• The original 2018 verdict (Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala) was decided 4:1 [S2].
• The 2018 judgment barred exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 years from Sabarimala [S2].
• Reference to a larger bench was made in November 2019; upheld by a 9-judge bench in February 2020 [S1].
• 66 matters are tagged along with the Sabarimala Review, including Parsi fire-temple entry and Dawoodi Bohra FGM cases [S1].
• The Sabarimala deity, Lord Ayyappa, is worshipped in the Naishtika Brahmachari (perpetual celibate) form [S3].
• Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and religion "subject to other provisions of Part III"; Article 26 (denominational rights) carries no such express qualifier [S2].
• Judgment was reserved on 14 May 2026 after a 16-day hearing [S1][S2].
• Senior advocate V. Giri represented the Sabarimala tantri (chief priest) [S3].
• Justices P.B. Varale and B.V. Nagarathna made key oral observations during the April 2026 hearing [S3].

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity & Governance — Fundamental Rights, judicial review, separation of religion and state, Indian Constitution — significant provisions (Articles 25, 26).
• GS-I (secondary): Social issues — gender justice, role of women, secularism debates in Indian society.
• Possible question stems: 1. "Discuss the constitutional tension between Article 25 and Article 26 as highlighted in the Sabarimala Review case. How should courts balance individual rationality with communal religious autonomy?" 2. "Critically examine the 'essential religious practices' doctrine and its adequacy in adjudicating disputes between gender equality and religious customs in India." 3. "'Judicial intervention in matters of faith risks conflating rationality with constitutional morality.' Comment with reference to the Sabarimala Review proceedings."

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine — foundational test being re-examined in this case.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) — the original judgment under review.
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (Triple Talaq case) — comparative case on religious practice vs. fundamental rights.
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28) — the constitutional backbone of the dispute.
• Constitutional Morality — recurring SC jurisprudential concept invoked in personal-law and temple-entry cases.
• Uniform Civil Code debate — parallel discourse on religion vs. state-driven equality norms.
• Parsi/Dawoodi Bohra faith practice cases — tagged matters riding on this reference's outcome.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Do not confuse this 2026 review hearing with the original 2018 Sabarimala verdict — they are different stages of the same litigation.
• The review was referred to a larger bench in 2019, but the 9-judge bench was constituted/upheld in 2020; hearings only commenced in April 2026 — aspirants often collapse these into one date.
• Article 25 has the qualifier "subject to other provisions of this Part"; Article 26 does not — a frequently reversed fact in MCQs.
• Sabarimala issue is not solely about gender — it is tied procedurally to Parsi, Muslim, and Dawoodi Bohra religious-practice cases via tagging.
• Avoid attributing the "rationality" question to the CJI himself — it was posed by Justice P.B. Varale, not Justice Surya Kant.

11. Sources

• [S1] Sabarimala Review | Nine-judge Bench to commence arguments from 7 April 2026 — https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sabarimala-review-nine-judge-bench-to-commence-arguments-from-7-april-2026/ — (tier: 4)
• [S2] Sabarimala Reference: Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict on Articles 25 and 26 After 16-Day Hearing — https://www.sansalegal.com/post/sabarimala-reference-supreme-court-9-judge-bench-reserves-verdict-on-articles-25-and-26-after-16-da — (tier: 4)
• [S3] Can we expect a devotee to follow any age-old practice in today's era, asks SC — The Hindu — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-04-22/th_international/articleGEMFSQBGE-14326645.ece — (tier: 4)
• [S4] Beyond Sabarimala: 9-Judge Bench Examines Validity of Parsi Excommunications Under Articles 25—26 — https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/06/supreme-court-sabrimala-reference/ — (tier: 4)