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 State Power under Article 25(2)(b) in Sabarimala Case

Supreme Court Deliberates State Power under Article 25(2)(b) in Sabarimala Case
The Supreme Court, in its seventh day of hearing on the Sabarimala case, underscored that State intervention in religious practices under Article 25(2)(b) must be assessed case‑by‑case, with no universal guidelines. The bench examined the balance between social reform and essential religious practices, signalling a nuanced, fact‑specific approach for future rulings.
The seventh day of the Supreme Court hearing on the Sabarimala reference saw the bench stress that universal guidelines for State intervention in religious practices cannot be set in stone; each case will be judged on its own facts. Key Developments Chief Justice of India ( CJI ) Surya Kant warned that the phrase “social welfare and reform” is broad and that the Court cannot lay down blanket rules for future scenarios. Justice BV Nagarathna posed a hypothetical: if Kerala law permitted women aged 10‑50 to enter Sabarimala as a reform, would that constitute an invasion of essential religious practice? Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium stressed that any State law must first undergo a careful inquiry into whether the excluded practice is part of an ancient tradition, custom or usage before it can be justified under Article 25(2)(b) . Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the legislative competence under Article 25(2)(b) as a “narrow window”, questioning whether directives from the Directive Principles of State Policy can be invoked as a basis for reform. Important Facts The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant , Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi , examined the interplay between Article 25(1) rights and the restrictions imposed by Part III . They reiterated that the State, as the people's representative, may act against social evils, but such action must be assessed case‑by‑case. UPSC Relevance Understanding the limits of Article 25(2)(b) is essential for GS 2 questions on constitutional law and the balance between individual rights and State policy. The ERP test and its evolving jurisprudence illustrate how courts interpret religious freedom, a frequent GS 2 topic. The debate highlights the role of the Directive Principles in shaping legislation, linking constitutional morality with social reform—a point often asked in essay and ethics papers. The Sabarimala controversy serves as a case study for the interaction of law, religion, gender rights, and federalism, relevant for both GS 2 and GS 4. Way Forward The Court indicated that future judgments will continue to adopt a fact‑specific approach, examining the historical origin of the practice, its essentiality, and the genuine intent of the State. Aspirants should monitor subsequent hearings for the final pronouncement, which will clarify the scope of State power under Article 25(2)(b) and potentially reshape the jurisprudence on religious freedom in India.
  1. Home
  2. Prepare
  3. Current Affairs
  4. Supreme Court Deliberates State Power under Article 25(2)(b) in Sabarimala Case
Must Review
Login to bookmark articles
Login to mark articles as complete

Overview

gs.gs282% UPSC Relevance

SC stresses case‑by‑case test for State regulation of religion under Art 25(2)(b)

Key Facts

  1. In April 2026, the Supreme Court’s nine‑judge bench heard the Sabarimala reference, focusing on Article 25(2)(b).
  2. CJI Surya Kant warned that the phrase “social welfare and reform” is too broad for blanket judicial rules.
  3. Justice BV Nagarathna posed a hypothetical: permitting women aged 10‑50 at Sabarimala – would it breach essential religious practice?
  4. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium emphasized that any State law must first examine whether the excluded practice is an ancient tradition before invoking Art 25(2)(b).
  5. Justice Joymalya Bagchi called the legislative competence under Art 25(2)(b) a “narrow window” and questioned reliance on Directive Principles for reform.
  6. The bench comprised CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
  7. The Court reiterated that the Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test remains the key tool to assess State interference.

Background & Context

Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion but allows reasonable restrictions for social welfare and reform under clause (2)(b). The Sabarimala controversy tests the limits of this provision, linking constitutional morality, gender equality and the Directive Principles – core topics of GS‑2 and GS‑4. The evolving jurisprudence on the ERP test illustrates how courts balance individual rights with State policy.

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Prelims_GS•Constitution and Political SystemGS2•Historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structurePrelims_CSAT•Decision MakingGS4•Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationshipsEssay•Society, Gender and Social JusticeGS2•Government policies and interventions for developmentGS2•Comparison with other countries constitutional schemesGS2•Welfare schemes for vulnerable sectionsEssay•Philosophy, Ethics and Human ValuesGS2•Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning

Mains Answer Angle

In a GS‑2 answer, discuss how the Supreme Court’s case‑specific approach under Art 25(2)(b) reflects the tension between religious freedom and social reform, and evaluate its implications for future legislation. Possible question: “Analyse the role of the judiciary in mediating between constitutional religion and State‑driven social change.”

Full Article

<p>The seventh day of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India's apex judicial body, final interpreter of the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> hearing on the Sabarimala reference saw the bench stress that universal guidelines for State intervention in religious practices cannot be set in stone; each case will be judged on its own facts.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Chief Justice of India (<span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India (CJI) — Head of the Supreme Court and senior‑most judge, responsible for allocation of cases and administration of the judiciary (GS2: Polity)">CJI</span>) Surya Kant warned that the phrase “social welfare and reform” is broad and that the Court cannot lay down blanket rules for future scenarios.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice BV Nagarathna — Senior judge of the Supreme Court (GS2: Polity)">BV Nagarathna</span> posed a hypothetical: if Kerala law permitted women aged 10‑50 to enter Sabarimala as a reform, would that constitute an invasion of essential religious practice?</li> <li>Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium stressed that any State law must first undergo a careful inquiry into whether the excluded practice is part of an ancient tradition, custom or usage before it can be justified under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(2)(b) — Constitutional provision allowing the State to make laws for social welfare and reform affecting religious practices (GS2: Polity)">Article 25(2)(b)</span>.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Joymalya Bagchi — Member of the nine‑judge bench (GS2: Polity)">Joymalya Bagchi</span> described the legislative competence under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(2)(b)">Article 25(2)(b)</span> as a “narrow window”, questioning whether directives from the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Directive Principles of State Policy — Non‑justiciable guidelines in the Constitution directing the State to promote welfare, social justice and economic democracy (GS2: Polity)">Directive Principles of State Policy</span> can be invoked as a basis for reform.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The bench, comprising <strong>Chief Justice Surya Kant</strong>, Justices <strong>BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan</strong> and <strong>Joymalya Bagchi</strong>, examined the interplay between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(1) — 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(1)</span> rights and the restrictions imposed by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Part III — Chapter of the Constitution that outlines fundamental rights, including freedom of religion (GS2: Polity)">Part III</span>. They reiterated that the State, as the people's representative, may act against social evils, but such action must be assessed case‑by‑case.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <ul> <li>Understanding the limits of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(2)(b)">Article 25(2)(b)</span> is essential for GS 2 questions on constitutional law and the balance between individual rights and State policy.</li> <li>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test — Judicial tool to distinguish essential religious rites from non‑essential customs, used to assess validity of state interference (GS2: Polity)">ERP test</span> and its evolving jurisprudence illustrate how courts interpret religious freedom, a frequent GS 2 topic.</li> <li>The debate highlights the role of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Directive Principles of State Policy ">Directive Principles</span> in shaping legislation, linking constitutional morality with social reform—a point often asked in essay and ethics papers.</li> <li>The Sabarimala controversy serves as a case study for the interaction of law, religion, gender rights, and federalism, relevant for both GS 2 and GS 4.</li> </ul> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The Court indicated that future judgments will continue to adopt a fact‑specific approach, examining the historical origin of the practice, its essentiality, and the genuine intent of the State. Aspirants should monitor subsequent hearings for the final pronouncement, which will clarify the scope of State power under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(2)(b)">Article 25(2)(b)</span> and potentially reshape the jurisprudence on religious freedom in India.</p>
Read Original on livelaw

Analysis

Practice Questions

Prelims
Easy
Prelims MCQ

Constitutional provisions – Article 25(2)(b) and limits on State power

1 marks
5 keywords
GS2
Medium
Mains Short Answer

Judicial tests for religious freedom – ERP test and Sabarimala jurisprudence

10 marks
5 keywords
GS2
Hard
Mains Essay

Secularism, religious freedom, and State‑driven social reform – jurisprudential perspectives

250 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

SC stresses case‑by‑case test for State regulation of religion under Art 25(2)(b)

Key Facts

  1. In April 2026, the Supreme Court’s nine‑judge bench heard the Sabarimala reference, focusing on Article 25(2)(b).
  2. CJI Surya Kant warned that the phrase “social welfare and reform” is too broad for blanket judicial rules.
  3. Justice BV Nagarathna posed a hypothetical: permitting women aged 10‑50 at Sabarimala – would it breach essential religious practice?
  4. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium emphasized that any State law must first examine whether the excluded practice is an ancient tradition before invoking Art 25(2)(b).
  5. Justice Joymalya Bagchi called the legislative competence under Art 25(2)(b) a “narrow window” and questioned reliance on Directive Principles for reform.
  6. The bench comprised CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
  7. The Court reiterated that the Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test remains the key tool to assess State interference.

Background

Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion but allows reasonable restrictions for social welfare and reform under clause (2)(b). The Sabarimala controversy tests the limits of this provision, linking constitutional morality, gender equality and the Directive Principles – core topics of GS‑2 and GS‑4. The evolving jurisprudence on the ERP test illustrates how courts balance individual rights with State policy.

UPSC Syllabus

  • Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
  • GS2 — Historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
  • Prelims_CSAT — Decision Making
  • GS4 — Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationships
  • Essay — Society, Gender and Social Justice
  • GS2 — Government policies and interventions for development
  • GS2 — Comparison with other countries constitutional schemes
  • GS2 — Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections
Explore:Current Affairs·Editorial Analysis·Govt Schemes·Study Materials·Previous Year Questions·UPSC GPT
  • Essay — Philosophy, Ethics and Human Values
  • GS2 — Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning

    • Mains Angle

    In a GS‑2 answer, discuss how the Supreme Court’s case‑specific approach under Art 25(2)(b) reflects the tension between religious freedom and social reform, and evaluate its implications for future legislation. Possible question: “Analyse the role of the judiciary in mediating between constitutional religion and State‑driven social change.”

    Supreme Court Deliberates State Power unde... | UPSC Current Affairs