Balancing faith, dignity and constitutional rights

Balancing Faith, Dignity and Constitutional Rights

The Sabarimala Jurisprudence and India's Religious Freedom Architecture

1. At a Glance

• The tension between religious autonomy (Articles 25 & 26) and fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 17, 21) lies at the heart of India's constitutional design — an unresolved fault-line since 1950. [S1]
• The Sabarimala case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018) is the defining modern test of whether courts can override religious practice in the name of equality and dignity. [S2]
• A nine-judge Constitution Bench (2026) is now delivering final arguments on review petitions, making the outcome one of the most consequential rulings on religious freedom jurisprudence in independent India. [S1]
• UPSC relevance: GS-II (Polity — Fundamental Rights, SC judgments), GS-IV (Ethics — morality, tradition vs. reform). Frequently tested in both Prelims and Mains.

2. Why in the News

• September 2018: Five-judge Constitution Bench (4:1 majority) in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala struck down the prohibition on women aged 10–50 entering Sabarimala temple, ruling it unconstitutional. [S2]
• November 2019: A 3:2 majority referred review petitions and larger constitutional questions to a larger nine-judge bench, keeping the review pending. [S1]
• February 2026: Final arguments in the review petitions are underway before the nine-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant; the bench is simultaneously examining the broader Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine and limits of state intervention in religion. [S1][S3]

3. Background & Evolution

Chronological milestones:

Related antecedents: - Shirur Mutt case (1954): SC first articulated the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test — only practices essential or integral to a religion are protected under Article 26. - Haji Ali Dargah case (2016): Bombay HC struck down ban on women entering the inner sanctum, citing Article 14 and 25.

4. Core Static Facts

Constitutional provisions at stake:

Key statutory instrument: - Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 — Rule 3(b): barred women "who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship." [S3]

The 2018 Bench — composition:

Key doctrines:

• Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test: Practice must be essential and integral to the religion to be protected under Art. 25/26. Exclusion of women from Sabarimala was held NOT to be an ERP. [S2]
• Constitutional morality vs. popular morality: Justice Chandrachud's concurrence argued that constitutional morality must prevail over popular morality (social norms). [S2]
• Denominational test (Art. 26): Devotees of Lord Ayyappa held by the majority NOT to constitute a separate religious denomination (lacked distinct name, common faith hierarchy). [S2]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Art. 25 vs. Art. 26 tension: Art. 25 gives individuals the right to religion; Art. 26 gives denominations autonomy to manage affairs. The majority ruled that Ayyappa devotees are not a denomination, so Art. 26 does not apply. [S2]
• Physiological classification as discrimination: The 10–50 age bar directly tracks menstruation; majority held this constitutes discrimination based on physiological characteristic unique to women, violating Art. 15(1). [S2]
• ERP doctrine critique: Justice Chandrachud's opinion questioned whether courts should be the arbiters of what is "essential" to religion — a role inherently theological. The nine-judge bench is expected to revisit this doctrine. [S1]
• Rule 3(b) ultra vires: Majority held Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Act to be ultra vires the parent Act which was designed for inclusion, not exclusion. [S3]

Social

• Gender justice vs. religious autonomy: Case exposed deep societal disagreement — street protests in Kerala following the 2018 verdict; women activists who attempted temple entry faced violence. [S3]
• Menstrual taboo: The judgment directly confronted institutionalized stigma around menstruation, framing it as a dignity issue under Art. 21. [S2]
• Intersectionality: Overlapping axes of gender, caste, and religious identity — temple entry rights have historical resonance with the Dalit temple entry movements of the 20th century. [S3]

Ethical / Governance

• Constitutional morality: The concept — that the state must uphold constitutional values even against majoritarian religious sentiment — was central to Justice Chandrachud's opinion. [S2]
• Judicial restraint vs. activism: Justice Malhotra's dissent argued that notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by courts — courts should not sit in judgment over faith. [S2]
• State neutrality: Art. 25(2) allows the state to make laws for social welfare and reform in Hindu religious institutions — a deliberate asymmetry in the Constitution that remains contested. [S2]

Historical

• Temple entry movement: The Sabarimala case echoes the 1920s–40s struggles by Dalits for temple entry rights, leading eventually to Art. 17 (Untouchability Abolition). The comparison is instructive but contested — caste exclusion vs. gender-based religious practice raises distinct legal questions. [S3]
• Post-colonial constitutional settlement: India's framers deliberately subjected religion to social reform under Art. 25(2)(b), departing from strict non-intervention models. [S2]

Administrative

• Implementation gap: Despite the 2018 verdict, very few women in the 10–50 age group have managed to enter Sabarimala due to protests and logistical barriers. The nine-judge bench's verdict will have significant implementation implications. [S1]
• State role: Kerala government initially welcomed the 2018 verdict, then retreated politically — illustrating the tension between state constitutional obligations and electoral considerations.

6. Recent Developments (Last 12–18 Months)

• 2025–26: Nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court under CJI Surya Kant hears final arguments in the consolidated Sabarimala review and related cases on women's entry to places of worship. [S1]
• April 2026: Hearing continued; court examines limits of state power in religious matters, revisiting the scope of Art. 25 and 26. [S1]
• Pending reference questions include: (i) scope of ERP doctrine; (ii) whether right to religion of an individual overrides a denomination's right to manage affairs; (iii) extent of Art. 25(2)(b) legislative power for social reform. [S1]
• February 2026: The article by advocate Suhrith Parthasarathy (Madras HC) published in The Hindu analyses the architecture of India's religious freedom jurisprudence as the final arguments conclude. [S3]

7. Prelims Hooks

1. The 2018 Sabarimala judgment was delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench with a 4:1 majority. [S2]
2. The sole dissenting judge in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) was Justice Indu Malhotra. [S2]
3. The restriction on women's entry at Sabarimala was contained in Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965. [S3]
4. The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test was first articulated by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case, 1954. [S2]
5. Women between the ages of 10 and 50 were restricted from entering Sabarimala — corresponding to menstruating age. [S2]
6. The majority held that Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26. [S2]
7. In November 2019, the Supreme Court referred review petitions in the Sabarimala case to a nine-judge bench by a 3:2 majority. [S1]
8. The nine-judge bench hearing the review (2026) is headed by CJI Surya Kant. [S1]
9. The constitutional provision enabling the state to make laws for social welfare and reform in Hindu institutions is Article 25(2)(b). [S2]
10. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's concurring opinion introduced the concept of constitutional morality overriding popular morality in the religious context. [S2]
11. The Haji Ali Dargah case (2016) was decided by the Bombay High Court, not the Supreme Court — a common confusion point. [S3]
12. Article 17 (Untouchability Abolition) is often invoked alongside Art. 14, 15, 25 in temple entry cases, but does not directly apply to gender-based exclusions. [S2]
13. The phrase "constitutional morality" was originally coined by B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly debates. [S2]

8. Mains Relevance

GS Paper mapping:

Plausible Mains question stems:

1. "The Sabarimala judgment represents the triumph of constitutional morality over popular morality. Critically examine the proposition in light of India's religious freedom jurisprudence." (GS-II, 15 marks)
2. "The Essential Religious Practices doctrine has become a judicial tool that paradoxically requires courts to make theological judgments. Discuss its evolution, critique, and proposed alternatives." (GS-II, 15 marks)
3. "Balancing individual rights under Article 25 with denominational autonomy under Article 26 remains a constitutional challenge. Analyse with reference to landmark Supreme Court judgments." (GS-II, 10 marks)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

1. Confusing Art. 25 and Art. 26: Art. 25 is an individual right; Art. 26 is a denominational right. The Sabarimala majority ruled on both — the crucial finding was that Ayyappa devotees do NOT form a denomination, so Art. 26 was inapplicable.

2. Wrong year for ERP doctrine origin: The ERP test originated in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), NOT in Sabarimala. Aspirants conflate the two.

3. Attributing the "constitutional morality" argument to CJI Dipak Misra: It was Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's concurring opinion — not the CJI's lead opinion — that developed this concept most expansively.

4. Thinking the 2019 referral overturned the 2018 verdict: The 2019 referral did NOT reverse the 2018 judgment. The 2018 verdict stands; the nine-judge bench is hearing review petitions and examining additional constitutional questions.

5. Misidentifying the dissenter: Justice Indu Malhotra dissented (opposed women's entry); Justice Chandrachud concurred (favoured entry on broadest grounds). The two are frequently confused in MCQs.

11. Sources

• [S1] "Sabarimala Review Hearing: Supreme Court Examines Limits of State Power in Religious Matters" — https://www.newsgram.com/india/2026/04/23/sabarimala-supreme-court-women-entry-religious-freedom — (tier: 4)
• [S2] Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala — judgment analysis via search results; Al Jazeera report: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2018/9/28/india-supreme-court-overturns-ban-on-women-at-sabarimala-temple — (tier: 4)
• [S3] "Balancing faith, dignity and constitutional rights" — Suhrith Parthasarathy, The Hindu, 26 February 2026 — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-02-26/th_international/articleGHNFL088M-13661848.ece — (tier: 4, primary article)
• [S4] Supreme Court Observer — Sabarimala Reference proceedings — https://www.scobserver.in/cases/kantaru-rajeevaru-indian-young-lawyers-association-sabrimala-review-background/ — (tier: 4)
• [S5] Gulf News — "India Supreme Court refers Sabarimala review petitions to larger bench by 3:2 majority" — https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-supreme-court-refers-sabarimala-review-petitions-to-larger-bench-by-32-majority-1.1573709755021 — (tier: 4)