Supreme Court Re‑examines Sabarimala Ban – 7 Constitutional Questions before CJI Surya Kant

<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes involving fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has reconvened a nine‑judge constitution bench, led by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India Surya Kant — the head of the Indian judiciary, presiding over the nine‑judge bench hearing the Sabarimala review (GS2: Polity)">Chief Justice Surya Kant</span>, to revisit the 2018 verdict on the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala — a prominent Ayyappa temple in Kerala whose entry ban on women of menstruating age sparked a constitutional debate (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> temple. The bench is examining seven pivotal constitutional questions that cut across the themes of religious freedom, equality, and morality.</p> <h3>Key Developments (since April 7, 2026)</h3> <ul> <li>Formation of a nine‑judge bench to review the 2018 <strong>Indian Young Lawyers’ Association vs State of Kerala</strong> judgment.</li> <li>The bench is headed by <strong>CJ Surya Kant</strong>, marking the first time a nine‑judge panel has heard a single religious‑freedom case.</li> <li>Seven specific questions have been framed, ranging from the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III provisions (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> to the meaning of “sections of Hindus” in the Constitution.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Indu Malhotra — the sole female judge on the 2018 bench who argued that equality under Article 14 cannot override the fundamental right to religion (GS2: Polity)">Indu Malhotra</span> had dissented in 2018, emphasizing the primacy of religious freedom.</li> <li>The review bench will also consider similar disputes from other faiths, potentially setting a broader precedent.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts – The Seven Questions</h3> <ol> <li>Scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III provisions (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>.</li> <li>Interplay between individual rights under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III provisions (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and rights of religious denominations under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — confers to every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs, own property and administer its own institutions (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>.</li> <li>Whether rights of a denomination under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — confers to every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs, own property and administer its own institutions (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span> are subject to other Part III provisions beyond public order, morality and health.</li> <li>Scope of “morality” in Articles 25 and 26 – does it include constitutional morality?</li> <li>Extent of judicial review of a religious practice under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III provisions (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>.</li> <li>Meaning of the expression “sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b).</li> <li>Whether a non‑member of a religious denomination can challenge its practices via a public interest litigation (PIL).</li> </ol> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>These questions test core concepts of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practice (ERP) — a practice that is integral to the faith and therefore protected from state interference (GS2: Polity)">ERP</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="religious denomination — a distinct group within a religion having a common faith, organization and name, recognised for constitutional protection (GS2: Polity)">religious denomination</span>. Understanding the balance between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III provisions (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> (religious freedom) and equality provisions under Articles 14, 15 and 17 is essential for GS 2 (Polity) and for essay topics on secularism and constitutional morality.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <ul> <li>Future judgments may clarify whether “morality” is limited to societal norms or expands to “constitutional morality”, influencing how courts assess religious practices.</li> <li>A definitive stance on the “denomination” test will guide the protection of core religious practices across faiths.</li> <li>Potential outcomes range from upholding the 2018 decision, modifying it to allow limited restrictions, or reinstating the ban – each scenario will reshape the jurisprudence on gender equality versus religious autonomy.</li> </ul> <p>For UPSC aspirants, tracking this case offers a live laboratory on constitutional interpretation, the doctrine of essential religious practices, and the evolving role of the judiciary in reconciling competing fundamental rights.</p>