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 Reserved Verdict on Sabarimala Case – Debate on Articles 25 & 26

The Supreme Court’s nine‑judge bench has reserved its verdict on the Sabarimala reference, focusing on the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 and the meaning of ‘subject to other provisions of Part III’. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and senior advocates debated whether other fundamental rights, especially equality provisions, limit religious freedoms, a decision that will shape future constitutional jurisprudence.
Overview The nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court has reserved its judgment after 16 days of hearings on the Sabarimala reference . The core issue is the interplay between Article 25 and Article 26 , and whether the phrase ‘subject to other provisions of this Part’ limits these rights. Key Developments (Bullet Points) Justice BV Nagarathna highlighted the lack of precedent on the meaning of ‘subject to other parts of Part III’. She questioned the argument that all rights in Part III automatically override Article 25, noting that Articles 25 and 26 themselves belong to Part III. Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, CS Vaidyanathan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and others debated whether Articles 14, 15, 19(2) and 21 can be invoked against religious freedoms. The bench, headed by CJI Surya Kant , heard divergent views on whether Article 25 is a horizontal right (claimable against private parties) or a vertical right (only against the State). Amicus K Parmeshwar warned against a rigid formula that would permanently exclude other fundamental rights from the analysis of Articles 25‑28. Important Facts • The Constitution places Articles 25‑28 under Part III . The phrase ‘subject to other provisions of this Part’ appears in Article 25 but not in Article 26, raising interpretative challenges. • Justice Nagarathna argued that Article 14 (equality before law) cannot be directly applied to Article 25(1) because the latter is a personal right against the State, not a horizontal right. • Senior counsel Gopal Subramanium emphasized that the terms ‘religious practice’, ‘matters of religion’ in Articles 26‑28 help read the limitation clause. • The respondents contend that the limitation in Article 25(1) should extend to Article 26, thereby allowing the State to regulate denominational rights for social welfare (Article 25(2)(b)). UPSC Relevance The debate touches upon several core UPSC topics: constitutional interpretation, the balance between individual liberty and societal welfare, and the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. Understanding the hierarchy of fundamental rights (vertical vs. horizontal) is essential for GS 2 (Polity). The case also illustrates how the judiciary navigates gender equality (Article 14, Article 15) within the framework of religious freedom, a recurring theme in essay and interview questions. Way Forward • The bench is expected to clarify whether the phrase ‘subject to other provisions of this Part’ creates a blanket limitation or a case‑by‑case test. • A nuanced ruling could set a precedent for future conflicts between personal religious rights and other fundamental rights such as equality, non‑discrimination and freedom of speech. • Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its impact on jurisprudence related to Article 17 and other social‑justice provisions, as it may influence policy debates on gender and religious reforms.
  1. Home
  2. Prepare
  3. Current Affairs
  4. Supreme Court Reserved Verdict on Sabarimala Case – Debate on Articles 25 & 26
Must Review
Login to bookmark articles
Login to mark articles as complete

Overview

gs.gs282% UPSC Relevance

Supreme Court’s pending Sabarimala verdict tests clash between religious freedom and gender equality.

Key Facts

  1. The Supreme Court's nine‑judge bench reserved its judgment on the Sabarimala reference after 16 days of hearings.
  2. The crux of the dispute is the interplay between Articles 25 (freedom of religion) and 26 (right to manage religious affairs) and the phrase ‘subject to other provisions of this Part’ in Article 25.
  3. Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted the absence of any precedent interpreting the phrase ‘subject to other parts of Part III’.
  4. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, examined whether Article 25 is a vertical right (against the State) or a horizontal right (claimable against private parties).
  5. Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and others argued that Articles 14, 15, 19(2) and 21 can be invoked against the exercise of religious freedom.
  6. Amicus K Parmeshwar cautioned against a rigid formula that would permanently exclude other fundamental rights from the analysis of Articles 25‑28.
  7. Respondents contended that the limitation clause of Article 25(1) should extend to Article 26, permitting State regulation of denominational rights under Article 25(2)(b).

Background & Context

The Sabarimala reference pits individual liberty and gender equality (Articles 14, 15, 21) against religious freedom (Articles 25‑26). It tests the hierarchy of fundamental rights, the vertical‑horizontal distinction, and the basic‑structure doctrine—key themes in the Polity syllabus of GS‑2.

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Essay•Society, Gender and Social JusticeEssay•Philosophy, Ethics and Human ValuesGS4•Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationshipsGS4•Case Studies on ethical issuesGS2•Constitutional posts, bodies and their powers and functionsPrelims_GS•Constitution and Political SystemGS4•Content, structure, function of attitude and its influence on behaviorGS2•Government policies and interventions for developmentPrelims_GS•National Current AffairsGS2•Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning

Mains Answer Angle

GS‑2: "Analyse the constitutional challenges in balancing religious freedom with gender equality, citing the Sabarimala case and relevant jurisprudence." This can be framed as a 250‑word essay or a 10‑mark short answer on vertical vs. horizontal application of Article 25.

Full Article

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The nine‑judge bench of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and settles disputes between the Union, states and citizens (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has reserved its judgment after 16 days of hearings on the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala reference — a constitutional reference concerning the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, raising questions on religious freedom and gender equality (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala reference</span>. The core issue is the interplay between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — 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> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — confers the right to manage religious affairs, establish institutions and maintain religious property (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>, and whether the phrase ‘subject to other provisions of this Part’ limits these rights.</p> <h3>Key Developments (Bullet Points)</h3> <ul> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice B.V. Nagarathna — senior Supreme Court judge known for her nuanced views on fundamental rights and gender issues (GS2: Polity)">BV Nagarathna</span> highlighted the lack of precedent on the meaning of ‘subject to other parts of Part III’.</li> <li>She questioned the argument that all rights in Part III automatically override Article 25, noting that Articles 25 and 26 themselves belong to Part III.</li> <li>Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, CS Vaidyanathan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and others debated whether Articles 14, 15, 19(2) and 21 can be invoked against religious freedoms.</li> <li>The bench, headed by CJI <strong>Surya Kant</strong>, heard divergent views on whether Article 25 is a horizontal right (claimable against private parties) or a vertical right (only against the State).</li> <li>Amicus K Parmeshwar warned against a rigid formula that would permanently exclude other fundamental rights from the analysis of Articles 25‑28.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• The Constitution places Articles 25‑28 under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Part III — Chapter dealing with Fundamental Rights, which are enforceable against the State and, in some cases, private parties (GS2: Polity)">Part III</span>. The phrase ‘subject to other provisions of this Part’ appears in Article 25 but not in Article 26, raising interpretative challenges.</p> <p>• Justice Nagarathna argued that Article 14 (equality before law) cannot be directly applied to Article 25(1) because the latter is a personal right against the State, not a horizontal right.</p> <p>• Senior counsel Gopal Subramanium emphasized that the terms ‘religious practice’, ‘matters of religion’ in Articles 26‑28 help read the limitation clause.</p> <p>• The respondents contend that the limitation in Article 25(1) should extend to Article 26, thereby allowing the State to regulate denominational rights for social welfare (Article 25(2)(b)).</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>The debate touches upon several core UPSC topics: constitutional interpretation, the balance between individual liberty and societal welfare, and the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. Understanding the hierarchy of fundamental rights (vertical vs. horizontal) is essential for GS 2 (Polity). The case also illustrates how the judiciary navigates gender equality (Article 14, Article 15) within the framework of religious freedom, a recurring theme in essay and interview questions.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>• The bench is expected to clarify whether the phrase ‘subject to other provisions of this Part’ creates a blanket limitation or a case‑by‑case test.</p> <p>• A nuanced ruling could set a precedent for future conflicts between personal religious rights and other fundamental rights such as equality, non‑discrimination and freedom of speech.</p> <p>• Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its impact on jurisprudence related to <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 17 — abolishes untouchability and mandates social equality, reflecting the Constitution’s commitment to eradicate caste discrimination (GS2: Polity)">Article 17</span> and other social‑justice provisions, as it may influence policy debates on gender and religious reforms.</p>
Read Original on livelaw

Analysis

Practice Questions

GS2
Easy
Prelims MCQ

Fundamental Rights – Articles 25‑28

1 marks
3 keywords
GS2
Medium
Mains Short Answer

Interpretation of Fundamental Rights

10 marks
5 keywords
GS2
Hard
Mains Essay

Gender, Religion and Constitutional Law

250 marks
9 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’s pending Sabarimala verdict tests clash between religious freedom and gender equality.

Key Facts

  1. The Supreme Court's nine‑judge bench reserved its judgment on the Sabarimala reference after 16 days of hearings.
  2. The crux of the dispute is the interplay between Articles 25 (freedom of religion) and 26 (right to manage religious affairs) and the phrase ‘subject to other provisions of this Part’ in Article 25.
  3. Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted the absence of any precedent interpreting the phrase ‘subject to other parts of Part III’.
  4. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, examined whether Article 25 is a vertical right (against the State) or a horizontal right (claimable against private parties).
  5. Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and others argued that Articles 14, 15, 19(2) and 21 can be invoked against the exercise of religious freedom.
  6. Amicus K Parmeshwar cautioned against a rigid formula that would permanently exclude other fundamental rights from the analysis of Articles 25‑28.
  7. Respondents contended that the limitation clause of Article 25(1) should extend to Article 26, permitting State regulation of denominational rights under Article 25(2)(b).

Background

The Sabarimala reference pits individual liberty and gender equality (Articles 14, 15, 21) against religious freedom (Articles 25‑26). It tests the hierarchy of fundamental rights, the vertical‑horizontal distinction, and the basic‑structure doctrine—key themes in the Polity syllabus of GS‑2.

UPSC Syllabus

  • Essay — Society, Gender and Social Justice
  • Essay — Philosophy, Ethics and Human Values
  • GS4 — Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationships
  • GS4 — Case Studies on ethical issues
  • GS2 — Constitutional posts, bodies and their powers and functions
  • Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
  • GS4 — Content, structure, function of attitude and its influence on behavior
Explore:Current Affairs·Editorial Analysis·Govt Schemes·Study Materials·Previous Year Questions·UPSC GPT
  • GS2 — Government policies and interventions for development
  • Prelims_GS — National Current Affairs
  • GS2 — Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning

    • Mains Angle

    GS‑2: "Analyse the constitutional challenges in balancing religious freedom with gender equality, citing the Sabarimala case and relevant jurisprudence." This can be framed as a 250‑word essay or a 10‑mark short answer on vertical vs. horizontal application of Article 25.

    Supreme Court Reserved Verdict on Sabarima... | UPSC Current Affairs