Skip to main content
Loading page, please wait…
HomeCurrent AffairsEditorialsGovt SchemesLearning ResourcesUPSC SyllabusPricingAboutBest UPSC AIUPSC AI ToolAI for UPSCUPSC ChatGPT

© 2026 Vaidra. All rights reserved.

PrivacyTerms
Vaidra Logo
Vaidra

Top 4 items + smart groups

UPSC GPT
New
Current Affairs
Daily Solutions
Daily Puzzle
Mains Evaluator

Version 2.0.0 • Built with ❤️ for UPSC aspirants

Supreme Court Deliberates on Article 25 vs 26 in Sabarimala & Zoroastrian Women Case

Senior Advocate Darius Khambata argued before the Supreme Court (5 May 2026) that Article 25(1) – the individual right to freedom of religion – must not be subordinated to Article 26(b), which protects denominational autonomy. The bench, hearing both the Sabarimala and a Parsi case on exclusion of women, is likely to adopt a balancing approach that safeguards gender equality and individual religious rights while limiting denominational power to dominate believers.
Overview On 5 May 2026 , a nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court heard a combined petition that linked the long‑standing Sabarimala reference with a fresh case filed by Goolrook Gupta . Senior Advocate Darius Khambata contended that giving primacy to Article 26(b) over Article 25(1) would erode individual religious rights. Key Developments The bench noted that the practice of barring Parsi women who marry outside the community appears gender‑discriminatory . Senior counsel argued that religious denominations derive their collective rights from Article 25(1) , not the other way round. He emphasized that equality is embedded in Articles 14, 15 and 17 , and that Article 25(1) must be read to protect gender and intra‑denominational equality. Justices Sundresh, Nagarathna and Amanullah highlighted that while Article 26(b) safeguards autonomy against state interference, it cannot be a tool for denominations to dominate individual believers. The counsel cited the Venkataramana Devaru case as a precedent for harmonious interpretation. Important Facts • The petition challenges a Parsi trust’s unilateral decision to deny entry to women marrying outside the community. • The same bench is hearing the Sabarimala matter, where the constitutionality of age‑based gender exclusion is under scrutiny. • Senior counsel argued that if Article 26(b) were given supremacy, it would empower exclusionary practices contrary to the Constitution’s secular ethos. UPSC Relevance The debate touches upon three core areas of the UPSC syllabus: Constitutional Law (GS2) : Understanding the hierarchy and interplay of fundamental rights (Articles 25, 26) and the equality clause (Articles 14‑17). Religion & Social Reform (GS1/GS2) : How the Constitution balances freedom of religion with social justice, especially gender equality. Judicial Interpretation (GS2) : The method of reading provisions “together” rather than in isolation, a principle evident in landmark cases like RC Cooper and KS Puttaswamy . Way Forward The Court is likely to adopt a "balancing" approach, ensuring that: Individual religious freedoms under Article 25(1) are not overridden by denominational autonomy. Any restriction on denominational rights must be justified by a genuine religious doctrine, not by arbitrary social customs. Gender‑based discrimination, even when claimed as a religious practice, will be examined against the equality guarantees of Articles 14‑17. Such a nuanced interpretation will preserve India’s pluralistic ethos while preventing misuse of religious autonomy to curtail individual rights.
  1. Home
  2. Prepare
  3. Current Affairs
  4. Supreme Court Deliberates on Article 25 vs 26 in Sabarimala & Zoroastrian Women Case
Login to bookmark articles
Login to mark articles as complete

Overview

gs.gs272% UPSC Relevance

Supreme Court weighs Article 25 over 26 to curb gender bias in religious practices

Key Facts

  1. 5 May 2026: A nine‑judge Supreme Court bench heard a combined petition linking the Sabarimala case with a challenge to Parsi fire‑temple entry rules for women marrying outside the community.
  2. The petition contests the Parsi trust’s denial of entry to such women, alleging gender discrimination under Articles 14, 15 and 17.
  3. Key constitutional provisions under debate are Article 25(1) – individual freedom of religion, and Article 26(b) – right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
  4. Senior counsel Darius Khambata argued that Article 26(b) cannot supersede individual rights under Article 25(1) and the equality clause.
  5. The bench cited the Venkataramana Devaru judgment as a precedent for a harmonious reading of Articles 25 and 26.
  6. Justices Sundresh, Nagarathna and Amanullah warned that giving primacy to Article 26(b) could enable exclusionary practices contrary to India’s secular ethos.
  7. The same bench is concurrently hearing the Sabarimala matter, which questions age‑based gender exclusion of women (10‑50 years) from the temple.

Background & Context

Article 25 guarantees individual freedom of religion, while Article 26 protects collective rights of denominations. Conflicts arise when denominational customs, such as barring women from Sabarimala or Parsi fire‑temples, clash with constitutional guarantees of gender equality under Articles 14, 15 and 17. The Supreme Court’s balancing approach will define the limits of religious autonomy in India’s secular framework.

UPSC Syllabus Connections

GS4•Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationshipsEssay•Philosophy, Ethics and Human ValuesPrelims_GS•Public Policy and Rights IssuesEssay•Society, Gender and Social JusticePrelims_GS•Constitution and Political SystemGS4•Role of family, society and educational institutions in inculcating valuesPrelims_GS•National Current AffairsEssay•Youth, Health and WelfareGS4•Integrity, impartiality, non-partisanship, objectivity and dedication to public serviceGS2•Comparison with other countries constitutional schemes

Mains Answer Angle

Candidates can discuss the tension between Articles 25 and 26 in GS 2, evaluating whether denominational autonomy should be subordinated to Articles 14‑17 when religious practices discriminate on gender. A possible Mains question may ask to assess the impact of the Court’s interpretation on gender‑based exclusions in religious institutions.

Full Article

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>On <strong>5 May 2026</strong>, a nine‑judge bench of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and settles disputes involving the Union, states and fundamental rights. (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> heard a combined petition that linked the long‑standing <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala reference — a constitutional challenge concerning the entry of women of certain ages into the Sabarimala temple, raising questions of gender equality and religious freedom. (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala reference</span> with a fresh case filed by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Goolrook Gupta — a Parsi litigant challenging the exclusion of Zoroastrian women who marry outside the community from entering the fire‑temple (Aghyaris). (GS2: Polity)">Goolrook Gupta</span>. Senior Advocate <span class="key-term" data-definition="Darius J. Khambata — senior counsel representing the petitioner, known for arguing on the interplay of Articles 25 and 26. (GS2: Polity)">Darius Khambata</span> contended that giving primacy to <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26(b) — constitutional provision granting religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, subject only to public order, morality and health. (GS2: Polity)">Article 26(b)</span> over <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(1) — constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. (GS2: Polity)">Article 25(1)</span> would erode individual religious rights.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench noted that the practice of barring Parsi women who marry outside the community appears <strong>gender‑discriminatory</strong>.</li> <li>Senior counsel argued that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Religious denomination — an organized group of believers that follows a distinct set of doctrines and rituals, recognised by law for certain rights. (GS2: Polity)">religious denominations</span> derive their collective rights from <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(1) — constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. (GS2: Polity)">Article 25(1)</span>, not the other way round.</li> <li>He emphasized that equality is embedded in <span class="key-term" data-definition="Articles 14, 15 & 17 — provisions guaranteeing equality before law, prohibition of discrimination, and abolition of untouchability respectively. (GS2: Polity)">Articles 14, 15 and 17</span>, and that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(1) — constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. (GS2: Polity)">Article 25(1)</span> must be read to protect gender and intra‑denominational equality.</li> <li>Justices Sundresh, Nagarathna and Amanullah highlighted that while <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26(b) — constitutional provision granting religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, subject only to public order, morality and health. (GS2: Polity)">Article 26(b)</span> safeguards autonomy against state interference, it cannot be a tool for denominations to dominate individual believers.</li> <li>The counsel cited the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Venkataramana Devaru judgment — a Supreme Court decision balancing Article 25(2)(b) and Article 26(b) in the context of temple administration. (GS2: Polity)">Venkataramana Devaru</span> case as a precedent for harmonious interpretation.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• The petition challenges a Parsi trust’s unilateral decision to deny entry to women marrying outside the community.<br> • The same bench is hearing the Sabarimala matter, where the constitutionality of age‑based gender exclusion is under scrutiny.<br> • Senior counsel argued that if <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26(b) — constitutional provision granting religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, subject only to public order, morality and health. (GS2: Polity)">Article 26(b)</span> were given supremacy, it would empower exclusionary practices contrary to the Constitution’s secular ethos.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>The debate touches upon three core areas of the UPSC syllabus:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Constitutional Law (GS2)</strong>: Understanding the hierarchy and interplay of fundamental rights (Articles 25, 26) and the equality clause (Articles 14‑17).</li> <li><strong>Religion & Social Reform (GS1/GS2)</strong>: How the Constitution balances freedom of religion with social justice, especially gender equality.</li> <li><strong>Judicial Interpretation (GS2)</strong>: The method of reading provisions “together” rather than in isolation, a principle evident in landmark cases like <span class="key-term" data-definition="RC Cooper v. Union of India — Supreme Court case on the right to privacy as part of Article 21. (GS2: Polity)">RC Cooper</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India — Supreme Court judgment that recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. (GS2: Polity)">KS Puttaswamy</span>.</li> </ul> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The Court is likely to adopt a "balancing" approach, ensuring that:</p> <ul> <li>Individual religious freedoms under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(1) — constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. (GS2: Polity)">Article 25(1)</span> are not overridden by denominational autonomy.</li> <li>Any restriction on denominational rights must be justified by a genuine religious doctrine, not by arbitrary social customs.</li> <li>Gender‑based discrimination, even when claimed as a religious practice, will be examined against the equality guarantees of Articles 14‑17.</li> </ul> <p>Such a nuanced interpretation will preserve India’s pluralistic ethos while preventing misuse of religious autonomy to curtail individual rights.</p>
Read Original on livelaw

Analysis

Practice Questions

Prelims
Medium
Prelims MCQ

Fundamental Rights – Articles 25 & 26

1 marks
3 keywords
GS2
Medium
Mains Short Answer

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Religion and Equality

10 marks
7 keywords
GS2
Hard
Mains Essay

Religion, Gender Equality and Constitutional Interpretation

25 marks
7 keywords
Related:Daily•Weekly

Loading related articles...

Loading related articles...

Tip: Click articles above to read more from the same date, or use the back button to see all articles.

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Supreme Court weighs Article 25 over 26 to curb gender bias in religious practices

Key Facts

  1. 5 May 2026: A nine‑judge Supreme Court bench heard a combined petition linking the Sabarimala case with a challenge to Parsi fire‑temple entry rules for women marrying outside the community.
  2. The petition contests the Parsi trust’s denial of entry to such women, alleging gender discrimination under Articles 14, 15 and 17.
  3. Key constitutional provisions under debate are Article 25(1) – individual freedom of religion, and Article 26(b) – right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
  4. Senior counsel Darius Khambata argued that Article 26(b) cannot supersede individual rights under Article 25(1) and the equality clause.
  5. The bench cited the Venkataramana Devaru judgment as a precedent for a harmonious reading of Articles 25 and 26.
  6. Justices Sundresh, Nagarathna and Amanullah warned that giving primacy to Article 26(b) could enable exclusionary practices contrary to India’s secular ethos.
  7. The same bench is concurrently hearing the Sabarimala matter, which questions age‑based gender exclusion of women (10‑50 years) from the temple.

Background

Article 25 guarantees individual freedom of religion, while Article 26 protects collective rights of denominations. Conflicts arise when denominational customs, such as barring women from Sabarimala or Parsi fire‑temples, clash with constitutional guarantees of gender equality under Articles 14, 15 and 17. The Supreme Court’s balancing approach will define the limits of religious autonomy in India’s secular framework.

UPSC Syllabus

  • GS4 — Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationships
  • Essay — Philosophy, Ethics and Human Values
  • Prelims_GS — Public Policy and Rights Issues
  • Essay — Society, Gender and Social Justice
  • Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
  • GS4 — Role of family, society and educational institutions in inculcating values
  • Prelims_GS — National Current Affairs
Explore:Current Affairs·Editorial Analysis·Govt Schemes·Study Materials·Previous Year Questions·UPSC GPT
  • Essay — Youth, Health and Welfare
  • GS4 — Integrity, impartiality, non-partisanship, objectivity and dedication to public service
  • GS2 — Comparison with other countries constitutional schemes

    • Mains Angle

    Candidates can discuss the tension between Articles 25 and 26 in GS 2, evaluating whether denominational autonomy should be subordinated to Articles 14‑17 when religious practices discriminate on gender. A possible Mains question may ask to assess the impact of the Court’s interpretation on gender‑based exclusions in religious institutions.

    Supreme Court Deliberates on Article 25 vs... | UPSC Current Affairs