Overview The AIMPLB has submitted written arguments before the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference case. It cautions that judicial determination of what constitutes an “essential religious practice” infringes on the freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution. Key Developments In its written submissions, the AIMPLB argues that identifying the “core” of a religion is subjective and should be left to scholars, not courts. The Board critiques the doctrine of ERP , saying it places an unfair evidentiary burden on believers. It proposes that the focus shift to whether state restrictions satisfy the constitutional limits of public order , morality and health. The Board warns against using “public order” or “secular regulation” as a pretext for interference without clear legal justification. It emphasizes that gender equality and religious freedom are not mutually exclusive, urging the Court to recognise women’s simultaneous claim to autonomy and faith. The nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear the matter from 7 April 2026 . Important Facts The review petitions stem from the 2018 verdict that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa temple. In November 2019, the Court referred questions on religious freedom to a larger bench. The present submissions were prepared by Senior Advocate MR Shamshad and Advocate Fuzail Ahmed Ayyubi . The Board cites the “sunrise‑to‑sunset” rule for protected monuments as an example where a facially neutral regulation can disproportionately affect Muslim worship (e.g., timing of Namaz in mosques located within heritage sites). This illustrates how neutrality may mask unequal impact on minority faiths. UPSC Relevance Understanding the tension between Article 25 and state regulation is crucial for GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑4 (Ethics) papers. The debate over ERP highlights the limits of judicial activism in matters of faith, a recurring theme in constitutional jurisprudence. Moreover, the discussion on “morality” versus “constitutional morality” (the latter being the Supreme Court’s interpretative tool) is directly relevant to questions on secularism and fundamental rights. Gender‑religion intersectionality raised by the Board aligns with GS‑3 (Society) and GS‑4 (Ethics) topics on women’s rights, equality, and pluralism in a diverse society. Way Forward Courts may adopt a “public order‑morality‑health” test, limiting inquiry into doctrinal essentials and thereby respecting religious autonomy. Legislature could consider clearer statutory definitions of “public order” and “secular activity” to reduce litigation. Scholars and religious denominations should be consulted in formulating policies that affect faith‑based practices, ensuring a balance between constitutional values and doctrinal nuances. Future jurisprudence should treat gender and religion as co‑existing identities, avoiding a zero‑sum perception of rights. These steps can help maintain the delicate equilibrium between individual liberties and the collective interest enshrined in the Constitution.