Q: Which provision of the Indian Constitution allows the State to enact laws for social reform even if they affect religious practices?

Correct answer: Article 25(2)(b) – it permits the State to make laws for social reform, public health, morality or order, even if they affect religious practices. Relevant for GS1.

Q: Explain the significance of the Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam judgment in the context of the Sabarimala birth‑based exclusion case.

The judgment upheld a Hindu denomination's right to prescribe specific qualifications for temple rituals, reinforcing the principle that courts may respect denominational customs unless they violate fundamental rights. In Sabarimala, it is cited to argue that birth‑based priestly qualifications are permissible under Article 26. Relevant for GS2.

Q: Discuss the challenges of balancing religious freedom and gender equality in India, with reference to the Sabarimala case and other relevant jurisprudence.

Structure: introduction on constitutional guarantees; body – (a) doctrinal basis (Articles 25, 26, 25(2)(b)), (b) landmark cases (Sabarimala, Shirur Mutt, Triple Talaq), (c) judicial approaches (balancing test, doctrine of essential religious practices), (d) policy implications and way forward; conclusion summarising the need for a nuanced jurisprudence that upholds gender justice without unduly infringing core religious practices. Relevant for GS2.

The Supreme Court’s nine‑judge bench examined whether birth‑based exclusion from the Sabarimala Temple violates constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26. Senior Advocate V Giri argued that worship must align with the deity’s celibate nature, while several justices highlighted the need to balance religious freedom with social reform, a pivotal issue for UPSC Polity and Ethics.

Supreme Court hearing on Sabarimala entry issue The nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court is examining whether a believer can be barred from touching the deity solely on the basis of birth. The case stems from the 2018 judgment that opened the Sabarimala Temple to women of all ages. Senior Advocate V Giri, representing the chief priest (Thanthri), argues that the right to worship must align with the deity’s characteristics, notably its perpetual celibacy. Key developments in the hearing (Day 6) Justice Article 25 was invoked to question if the Constitution can intervene when birth‑based exclusion is imposed. Justice BV Nagarathna emphasized that a believer’s rationality is not for a non‑believer to judge. Justice Prasanna B Varale warned against treating religious practices as immutable, noting that technology and education can reshape belief systems. Justice Joymalya Bagchi probed whether an individual believer can challenge denominational customs that the court traditionally respects. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah raised a hypothetical: if a devotee is barred from touching the creator because of lineage, does that violate constitutional guarantees? Justice MM Sundresh suggested that the issue may fall under Article 25(2)(b) concerning social reform. Important facts The bench comprises Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and eight other judges, including Justice Mahadevan, who cited the Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam precedent. Giri contended that a believer cannot question the denominational practice without losing the essence of his faith. He also argued that restricting temple duties to qualified persons is not untouchability but a matter of ritual purity governed by Agamas . UPSC relevance This case touches upon several core areas of the UPSC syllabus: constitutional law (fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26), the balance between individual liberty and religious freedom, and the role of the judiciary in social reform. It also illustrates how judicial interpretation can affect traditional customs, a recurring theme in GS 2 (Polity) and GS 4 (Ethics) papers. Way forward Legal scholars anticipate that the Court may delineate the limits of Article 26 vis‑à‑vis birth‑based exclusions. A nuanced judgment could set a precedent for reconciling constitutional guarantees with age‑old religious practices, potentially prompting legislative action under the social‑reform clause of Article 25(2)(b). Aspirants should monitor the final verdict for its implications on religious liberty, gender equality, and the scope of judicial activism.

<h2>Supreme Court hearing on Sabarimala entry issue</h2> <p>The 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> is examining whether a believer can be barred from touching the deity solely on the basis of birth. The case stems from the 2018 judgment that opened the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala Temple — a major Hindu shrine in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, traditionally restricting entry of women of menstruating age. (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala Temple</span> to women of all ages. Senior Advocate V Giri, representing the chief priest (Thanthri), argues that the right to worship must align with the deity’s characteristics, notably its perpetual celibacy.</p> <h3>Key developments in the hearing (Day 6)</h3> <ul> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian 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</span> was invoked to question if the Constitution can intervene when birth‑based exclusion is imposed.</li> <li>Justice BV Nagarathna emphasized that a believer’s rationality is not for a non‑believer to judge.</li> <li>Justice Prasanna B Varale warned against treating religious practices as immutable, noting that technology and education can reshape belief systems.</li> <li>Justice Joymalya Bagchi probed whether an individual believer can challenge denominational customs that the court traditionally respects.</li> <li>Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah raised a hypothetical: if a devotee is barred from touching the creator because of lineage, does that violate constitutional guarantees?</li> <li>Justice MM Sundresh suggested that the issue may fall under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(2)(b) — permits the State to make laws for social reform or to protect public health, morality or order, even if they affect religious practices. (GS2: Polity)">Article 25(2)(b)</span> concerning social reform.</li> </ul> <h3>Important facts</h3> <p>The bench comprises Chief Justice of India <strong>Surya Kant</strong> and eight other judges, including Justice Mahadevan, who cited the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam judgment — a Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of certain Hindu denominations to prescribe specific qualifications for temple rituals. (GS2: Polity)">Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam</span> precedent. Giri contended that a believer cannot question the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Denominational practice — rituals or customs that are unique to a particular religious sect and form part of its core belief system. (GS2: Polity)">denominational practice</span> without losing the essence of his faith. He also argued that restricting temple duties to qualified persons is not untouchability but a matter of ritual purity governed by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Agamas — scriptures that prescribe the mode of worship, temple architecture and priestly qualifications in Hinduism. (GS2: Polity)">Agamas</span>.</p> <h3>UPSC relevance</h3> <p>This case touches upon several core areas of the UPSC syllabus: constitutional law (fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26), the balance between individual liberty and religious freedom, and the role of the judiciary in social reform. It also illustrates how judicial interpretation can affect traditional customs, a recurring theme in GS 2 (Polity) and GS 4 (Ethics) papers.</p> <h3>Way forward</h3> <p>Legal scholars anticipate that the Court may delineate the limits of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — guarantees the right of every religious denomination to manage its own affairs, including the appointment of its clergy. (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span> vis‑à‑vis birth‑based exclusions. A nuanced judgment could set a precedent for reconciling constitutional guarantees with age‑old religious practices, potentially prompting legislative action under the social‑reform clause of Article 25(2)(b). Aspirants should monitor the final verdict for its implications on religious liberty, gender equality, and the scope of judicial activism.</p>

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Supreme Court re‑examines birth‑based bans at Sabarimala, testing religious freedom vs gender equality.

Key Facts

A nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court is hearing a petition challenging birth‑based exclusion at Sabarimala Temple.
The controversy arises from the 2018 SC judgment that opened Sabarimala to women of all ages, overturning the traditional ban on women of menstruating age.
Key constitutional provisions invoked are Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 25(2)(b) (state's power for social reform), and 26 (right of religious denominations to manage affairs).
Senior Advocate V Giri, representing the chief priest (Thanthri), argues that the deity’s perpetual celibacy mandates exclusion of women born into certain lineages.
The bench includes Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Mahadevan, who cited the Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam precedent on denominational qualifications.
Day‑6 interventions featured Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice MM Sundresh, focusing on rationality, evolution of religious practice, and the social‑reform clause.
Legal scholars anticipate the verdict may delineate limits on birth‑based exclusions, influencing future jurisprudence on religious liberty and gender equality.

Background

The case sits at the intersection of constitutional law and social justice, testing how Articles 25, 25(2)(b) and 26 balance individual religious freedom with gender equality. It exemplifies the Supreme Court's role in interpreting fundamental rights to drive social reform, a recurring theme in GS‑2 and GS‑4.

UPSC Syllabus

Essay — Society, Gender and Social Justice
Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
GS4 — Case Studies on ethical issues
GS4 — Essence, determinants and consequences of Ethics in human actions
Essay — Education, Knowledge and Culture
Essay — Science, Technology and Society
GS2 — Comparison with other countries constitutional schemes

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

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