Which provision of the Indian Constitution allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of religion in the interest of public order, morality or health?

Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience and religion but allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and health. Relevant for GS2.

Assess the challenges and opportunities in balancing religious freedom with gender equality in India, drawing upon the Sabarimala and Dawoodi Bohra cases heard by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench in 2026.

Structure the essay with an introduction on religious freedom, a body analysing the two cases, the doctrinal conflict between gender rights and religious autonomy, the role of constitutional morality and the basic structure doctrine, and a conclusion suggesting a nuanced jurisprudential approach. Relevant for GS2.

Supreme Court Constitution Bench Deliberat...

Q: Explain the significance of the Supreme Court’s observation that "excessive questioning of religious practices could break religions and destabilise the civilised fabric of India" in the context of Articles 25 and 26.

The answer should highlight the tension between protecting religious autonomy (Art. 26) and ensuring that religious practices do not violate other constitutional values, emphasizing the Court’s caution against over‑jurisdiction that may erode social harmony. Relevant for GS2.

On 7 May 2026, a nine‑judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench heard petitions on gender discrimination at Sabarimala and the Dawoodi Bohra community’s excommunication law, raising questions about the limits of Articles 25 and 26. The bench warned that unchecked litigation on religious practices could destabilise India’s civilised fabric, underscoring the delicate balance between religious freedom and fundamental rights—a key issue for UPSC aspirants.

The Supreme Court on 7 May 2026 heard arguments before a nine‑judge Constitution Bench on the limits of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Key Developments Petitions challenging gender discrimination at the Sabarimala temple were heard alongside a petition by the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community seeking reversal of a 1962 judgment on excommunication. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna , M M Sundresh , Ahsanuddin Amanullah , Aravind Kumar , Augustine George Masih , Prasanna B Varale , R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi formed the bench. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that a practice linked to secular misconduct cannot claim protection under Article 25 and therefore is not a “matter of religion” under Article 26 . Justices Nagarathna and Sundresh cautioned that excessive questioning of religious practices could “break” religions and destabilise the civilised fabric of India. Important Facts The 1986 PIL by the Dawoodi Bohra community sought to set aside the 1962 judgment that struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949. The 1962 decision held that excommunication by the community’s religious head formed part of its internal management and that the 1949 Act infringed on the community’s rights under Article 26(b) . Advocate Ramachandran contended that excommunication, though religious in origin, has a “secular and social” dimension that can impinge on fundamental rights, and therefore should not be insulated from constitutional scrutiny. UPSC Relevance Understanding the balance between religious freedom and other constitutional values such as gender equality and public order. Insights into how the judiciary interprets Articles 25 and 26 in contemporary disputes. Illustrates the role of a Constitution Bench in shaping jurisprudence on pluralism and secularism. Highlights the interplay between personal laws of minority communities (e.g., Dawoodi Bohra) and the overarching constitutional framework. Way Forward The Court is likely to delineate the scope of “matter of religion” and may set a test‑case for future challenges to internal religious practices. Aspirants should monitor the judgment for its articulation of the “public order” exception under Article 25 and the “management of affairs” clause under Article 26, as these will inform policy debates on religious reform, gender rights, and minority autonomy.

The Supreme Court on 7 May 2026 heard arguments before a nine‑judge Constitution Bench on the limits of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Petitions challenging gender discrimination at the Sabarimala temple were heard alongside a petition by the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community seeking reversal of a 1962 judgment on excommunication.</li> <li>Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi formed the bench.</li> <li>Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that a practice linked to secular misconduct cannot claim protection under Article 25 and therefore is not a “matter of religion” under Article 26.</li> <li>Justices Nagarathna and Sundresh cautioned that excessive questioning of religious practices could “break” religions and destabilise the civilised fabric of India.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> The 1986 PIL by the Dawoodi Bohra community sought to set aside the 1962 judgment that struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949. The 1962 decision held that excommunication by the community’s religious head formed part of its internal management and that the 1949 Act infringed on the community’s rights under Article 26(b). Advocate Ramachandran contended that excommunication, though religious in origin, has a “secular and social” dimension that can impinge on fundamental rights, and therefore should not be insulated from constitutional scrutiny. <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <ul> <li>Understanding the balance between religious freedom and other constitutional values such as gender equality and public order.</li> <li>Insights into how the judiciary interprets Articles 25 and 26 in contemporary disputes.</li> <li>Illustrates the role of a Constitution Bench in shaping jurisprudence on pluralism and secularism.</li> <li>Highlights the interplay between personal laws of minority communities (e.g., Dawoodi Bohra) and the overarching constitutional framework.</li> </ul> <h3>Way Forward</h3> The Court is likely to delineate the scope of “matter of religion” and may set a test‑case for future challenges to internal religious practices. Aspirants should monitor the judgment for its articulation of the “public order” exception under Article 25 and the “management of affairs” clause under Article 26, as these will inform policy debates on religious reform, gender rights, and minority autonomy.

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench to redefine ‘matter of religion’ under Articles 25‑26

Key Facts

7 May 2026: Supreme Court heard petitions on Sabarimala gender ban and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication before a nine‑judge Constitution Bench.
The bench comprised CJI Surya Kant and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
Petitioners challenged gender discrimination at Sabarimala (Article 25) and sought reversal of the 1962 judgment upholding the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 (Article 26(b)).
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that excommunication, though religious, has secular/social consequences and cannot be shielded by Article 25/26.
Justices Nagarathna and Sundresh warned that unchecked litigation on religious practices could "break" religions and destabilise India's civilised fabric.
The 1962 Supreme Court decision held that excommunication is an internal matter of the Dawoodi Bohra denomination, protected under Article 26(b).

Background

The cases test the constitutional balance between freedom of religion (Arts. 25 & 26) and other fundamental rights such as gender equality and the right to life, reflecting the judiciary's role in interpreting secularism, personal laws and the public‑order exception in a pluralistic society.

UPSC Syllabus

Essay — Society, Gender and Social Justice
Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
GS1 — Salient features of Indian Society and Diversity of India
GS2 — Historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
Essay — Philosophy, Ethics and Human Values
GS4 — Essence, determinants and consequences of Ethics in human actions
GS4 — Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationships
GS2 — Comparison with other countries constitutional schemes
GS2 — Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Key Facts

Background

UPSC Syllabus

Mains Angle

Supreme Court Constitution Bench Deliberates on Religious Practices – Implications for Article 25 & 26

Overview

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Analysis

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Key Facts

Background

UPSC Syllabus

Mains Angle