Supreme Court Justice Nagarathna Challenges Article 17 Application in Sabarimala Case – 2026 Hearing — UPSC Current Affairs

In a 2026 hearing on the Sabarimala reference, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned the applicability of Article 17 to the temple’s age‑based ban on women, sparking a debate with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The bench confined its discussion to broader constitutional questions, revisiting the scope of Article 25 and Article 26.

During the 2026 hearing on the constitutional reference concerning the Sabarimala temple, Justice B.V. Nagarathna raised doubts about invoking Article 17 to strike down the age‑based ban. Her remarks prompted a sharp exchange with Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta , who defended the ban as a matter of religious custom rather than untouchability. Key Developments (2026) Justice Nagarathna likened the three‑day monthly restriction on women’s entry to a “three‑day untouchability”, questioning its constitutional fit. SG Mehta rejected the untouchability analogy, emphasizing that the restriction is based on age, not menstruation, and that essential religious practices doctrine should not be applied. The bench clarified it will not revisit the merits of the 2018 judgment but will examine broader issues under Article 25 and Article 26 . SG Mehta cited Constituent Assembly debates, arguing that reforms in religious practices are legislative, not judicial, responsibilities as per Article 25(2)(b) . Important Facts The original 2018 verdict, delivered by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud , held that the ban constituted untouchability and violated Article 17 . The 5‑judge bench referred the matter to a larger 9‑judge bench in 2019; the present hearing revisits only constitutional questions. SG Mehta highlighted that Lord Ayyappa temples worldwide admit women, describing Sabarimala as a “sui generis” (unique) case. UPSC Relevance The debate touches upon several core GS‑2 topics: the balance between individual rights and religious freedom, the scope of Article 25 and Article 26 , and the constitutional prohibition of untouchability . Understanding the “essential religious practices” test and the role of the Solicitor General is crucial for answering questions on judicial review of religious customs. Way Forward The bench is expected to delineate the limits of judicial intervention in religious matters, possibly reaffirming that legislative action, not judicial pronouncement, should address reforms in personal law and temple practices. Aspirants should monitor forthcoming judgments for clarifications on the interplay between Article 17 , Article 25 , and Article 26 , as they will shape future jurisprudence on religious freedom versus gender equality.

During the 2026 hearing on the constitutional reference concerning the Sabarimala temple, Justice B.V. Nagarathna raised doubts about invoking Article 17 to strike down the age‑based ban. Her remarks prompted a sharp exchange with Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who defended the ban as a matter of religious custom rather than untouchability. <h3>Key Developments (2026)</h3> <ul> <li>Justice Nagarathna likened the three‑day monthly restriction on women’s entry to a “three‑day untouchability”, questioning its constitutional fit.</li> <li>SG Mehta rejected the untouchability analogy, emphasizing that the restriction is based on age, not menstruation, and that essential religious practices doctrine should not be applied.</li> <li>The bench clarified it will not revisit the merits of the 2018 judgment but will examine broader issues under Article 25 and Article 26.</li> <li>SG Mehta cited Constituent Assembly debates, arguing that reforms in religious practices are legislative, not judicial, responsibilities as per Article 25(2)(b).</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The original 2018 verdict, delivered by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, held that the ban constituted untouchability and violated Article 17.</li> <li>The 5‑judge bench referred the matter to a larger 9‑judge bench in 2019; the present hearing revisits only constitutional questions.</li> <li>SG Mehta highlighted that Lord Ayyappa temples worldwide admit women, describing Sabarimala as a “sui generis” (unique) case.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> The debate touches upon several core GS‑2 topics: the balance between individual rights and religious freedom, the scope of Article 25 and Article 26, and the constitutional prohibition of untouchability. Understanding the “essential religious practices” test and the role of the Solicitor General is crucial for answering questions on judicial review of religious customs. <h3>Way Forward</h3> The bench is expected to delineate the limits of judicial intervention in religious matters, possibly reaffirming that legislative action, not judicial pronouncement, should address reforms in personal law and temple practices. Aspirants should monitor forthcoming judgments for clarifications on the interplay between Article 17, Article 25, and Article 26, as they will shape future jurisprudence on religious freedom versus gender equality.

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay