UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — SC asks if judges must rise above religious beliefs in matters of conscience
Q1. The 'Essential Religious Practices' (ERP) doctrine, now under reconsideration in the Sabarimala reference, is a test that is evolved and applied by which one of the following?
- A. The Supreme Court of India through its judicial pronouncements
- B. The Law Commission of India
- C. The Ministry of Law and Justice
- D. The National Commission for Minorities
Q2. With reference to the distinction between Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution, consider the following statements:
1. Article 25 is, by its text, made subject to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
2. Article 26 is, by its text, also expressly made subject to the other provisions of Part III, exactly as Article 25 is.
3. Article 25 protects the individual's freedom of religion, whereas Article 26 protects the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- Article 25 is, by its text, made subject to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
- Article 26 is, by its text, also expressly made subject to the other provisions of Part III, exactly as Article 25 is.
- Article 25 protects the individual's freedom of religion, whereas Article 26 protects the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs.
- A. 1 only
- B. 1 and 3 only
- C. 2 and 3 only
- D. 1, 2 and 3
Q3. The nine-judge Constitution Bench that heard the Sabarimala reference and reserved judgment in 2026 is headed by which one of the following?
- A. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant
- B. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
- C. Justice M.M. Sundresh
- D. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Q4. The authority to constitute a nine-judge Constitution Bench, such as the one hearing the Sabarimala reference, and to assign the matter to it, vests in which one of the following?
- A. The Chief Justice of India, as the master of the roster
- B. The Collegium of the Supreme Court
- C. The President of India
- D. The Union Minister of Law and Justice
Q5. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), by what majority did the five-judge Constitution Bench hold that the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala shrine was unconstitutional?
Q6. With reference to the 2018 Sabarimala verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, consider the following statements:
1. It was decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
2. The Court struck down the exclusion of women as unconstitutional.
3. The restriction had barred women aged between 10 and 50 from the Ayyappa shrine.
4. The verdict was delivered unanimously, with all judges concurring and no dissent.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?
- It was decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
- The Court struck down the exclusion of women as unconstitutional.
- The restriction had barred women aged between 10 and 50 from the Ayyappa shrine.
- The verdict was delivered unanimously, with all judges concurring and no dissent.
- A. 1 and 3
- B. 2 only
- C. 4 only
- D. 3 and 4