Supreme Court 9‑Judge Bench to Hear Sabarimala Review: Seven Constitutional Questions on Articles 25 & 26

A nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by CJI Surya Kant, will hear the Sabarimala case, examining seven constitutional questions relating to <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25 and Article 26. The hearing will clarify the scope of religious freedom, the interplay of rights, and the standing of non‑members to challenge religious practices via a PIL.

The Supreme Court has constituted a nine‑judge bench to examine the constitutional dimensions of the Sabarimala case. The bench, led by CJI Surya Kant , will address seven specific questions that cut to the core of religious freedom under the Constitution. Key Developments Bench composition: Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan, Justice Joymalya Bagchi alongside the CJI. Seven questions focus on the scope of Article 25 , the interplay with Article 26 , and the limits of judicial review. The bench will also consider whether a non‑member of a religious denomination can file a PIL challenging a religious practice. Important Facts Question (i) : Defines the ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 . Question (ii) : Explores the relationship between individual rights under Article 25 and collective rights of denominations under Article 26 . Question (iii) : Asks whether rights under Article 26 are subject to other provisions of Part III beyond the traditional "public order, morality and health" clause. Question (iv) : Seeks the scope of "morality" in Articles 25 and 26 and whether it includes "constitutional morality". Question (v) : Examines the extent of judicial review over religious practices under Article 25 . Question (vi) : Interprets the phrase “Sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b). Question (vii) : Determines if a person outside a religious denomination can challenge its practices via a PIL . UPSC Relevance Understanding these questions is vital for GS Paper II (Polity) as they delve into the interpretation of fundamental rights, the balance between individual liberty and collective religious autonomy, and the doctrine of constitutional morality. The case also illustrates the role of the judiciary in shaping social policy, a recurring theme in ethics and governance (GS IV). Moreover, the procedural aspect of who can file a PIL touches upon access to justice, an important governance indicator. Way Forward Students should track the bench’s judgments to gauge future jurisprudence on religious freedom and constitutional morality. Analyse how the Court balances Article 25 with Article 26 and other fundamental rights under Part III . Consider the implications of expanding or restricting standing in religious matters for civil society and minority rights. Prepare concise notes linking the Sabarimala debate to broader themes of secularism, gender equality, and judicial activism for answer writing.

The Supreme Court has constituted a nine‑judge bench to examine the constitutional dimensions of the Sabarimala case. The bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, will address seven specific questions that cut to the core of religious freedom under the Constitution. <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Bench composition: Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan, Justice Joymalya Bagchi alongside the CJI.</li> <li>Seven questions focus on the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25, the interplay with Article 26, and the limits of judicial review.</li> <li>The bench will also consider whether a non‑member of a religious denomination can file a PIL challenging a religious practice.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>Question (i): Defines the ambit of the right to freedom of religion under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25.</li> <li>Question (ii): Explores the relationship between individual rights under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25 and collective rights of denominations under Article 26.</li> <li>Question (iii): Asks whether rights under Article 26 are subject to other provisions of Part III beyond the traditional "public order, morality and health" clause.</li> <li>Question (iv): Seeks the scope of "morality" in Articles 25 and 26 and whether it includes "constitutional morality".</li> <li>Question (v): Examines the extent of judicial review over religious practices under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25.</li> <li>Question (vi): Interprets the phrase “Sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b).</li> <li>Question (vii): Determines if a person outside a religious denomination can challenge its practices via a PIL.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> Understanding these questions is vital for GS Paper II (Polity) as they delve into the interpretation of fundamental rights, the balance between individual liberty and collective religious autonomy, and the doctrine of constitutional morality. The case also illustrates the role of the judiciary in shaping social policy, a recurring theme in ethics and governance (GS IV). Moreover, the procedural aspect of who can file a PIL touches upon access to justice, an important governance indicator. <h3>Way Forward</h3> <ul> <li>Students should track the bench’s judgments to gauge future jurisprudence on religious freedom and constitutional morality.</li> <li>Analyse how the Court balances <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25 with Article 26 and other fundamental rights under Part III.</li> <li>Consider the implications of expanding or restricting standing in religious matters for civil society and minority rights.</li> <li>Prepare concise notes linking the Sabarimala debate to broader themes of secularism, gender equality, and judicial activism for answer writing.</li> </ul>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay