<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes involving the Union, states and fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> is on the fourth day of arguments before a nine‑judge <span class="key-term" data-definition="CJI Surya Kant — The Chief Justice of India who heads the judiciary and presides over constitutional benches (GS2: Polity)">CJI Surya Kant</span>‑led bench in the long‑standing <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala — A prominent Hindu shrine in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappa; the case concerns the temple’s entry rules for women and non‑devotees (GS1: Culture, GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> reference. The bench comprises Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.</p> <h3>Key Developments (Day 4)</h3> <ul> <li>Solicitor General questioned whether “constitutional morality” can be invoked to override long‑standing temple customs.</li> <li>The Court asked how non‑devotees of Lord Ayyappa could challenge the Sabarimala entry norms.</li> <li>Bench reiterated that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial Review — The power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions (GS2: Polity)">Judicial Review</span> is not barred even when the matter involves “superstitious” practices.</li> <li>The Centre argued that recent verdicts de‑criminalising adultery and homosexuality should not be used to reinterpret Sabarimala’s customs.</li> <li>Separate hearings highlighted that excluding other denominations from temples may affect the broader fabric of Hinduism.</li> <li>It was noted that certain temples traditionally allow only women, a fact the Centre submitted to the Court.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The bench’s composition reflects a gender‑balanced panel, with Justice BV Nagarathna being the sole female judge. The hearing has repeatedly focused on two thematic strands: (i) the applicability of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional Morality — The principle that constitutional values and spirit must guide the interpretation of laws, especially on personal liberty and social reform (GS2: Polity)">Constitutional Morality</span> in religious contexts, and (ii) the extent to which temple‑specific customs such as <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sampradaya — A religious tradition or sect within Hinduism that often dictates ritual practice in a temple (GS1: Culture)">Sampradaya</span>-based restrictions can be overridden by the Constitution.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>For aspirants, the case illustrates the delicate balance between <strong>fundamental rights</strong> (Article 25‑26) and the autonomy of religious institutions. It underscores the role of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes involving the Union, states and fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> in shaping social policy through constitutional interpretation. The debate on “constitutional morality” is a recurring theme in GS‑2 questions on secularism, personal liberty and the limits of judicial activism.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>While the bench continues to hear arguments, the final judgment is expected to set a precedent on how far the judiciary can intervene in religious customs. Aspirants should monitor the outcome for its impact on future litigation concerning temple entry, gender equality, and the broader discourse on secularism versus religious freedom. Understanding the interplay of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial Review — The power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions (GS2: Polity)">Judicial Review</span> and constitutional principles will be crucial for answering both factual and analytical questions in the UPSC examination.</p>