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

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.