Which of the following is a permissible restriction on the freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution?

Article 25 allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on religious freedom in the interests of public order, morality and health. Relevant for Prelims.

State the "essential religious practice" test and its relevance to the SC's review of FGM in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

The test examines whether a practice is indispensable to the religion; if not, it cannot claim protection under Article 26 and can be regulated under Article 25 for health, morality, etc. Relevant for Mains.

Discuss the challenges of balancing freedom of religion with bodily autonomy and gender equality in India, citing the Supreme Court's consideration of FGM and the Sabarimala verdict as examples.

Structure the essay: (i) constitutional framework (Articles 25‑26, 14, 21), (ii) jurisprudence – Sabarimala (entry rights), (iii) FGM case – health & morality, (iv) ethical dimensions – bodily autonomy, (v) policy implications – need for legislation or stricter enforcement. Relevant for Mains.

Supreme Court Reviews FGM in Dawoodi Bohra...

The Supreme Court, hearing the Sabarimala reference, examined petitions challenging Female Genital Mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, assessing its compatibility with Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The bench highlighted health, morality and bodily autonomy concerns, indicating a possible curtailment of the practice despite claims of religious necessity.

Overview The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday linking petitions against FGM with the ongoing Sabarimala reference . The bench examined whether the practice, prevalent in the Dawoodi Bohra community, can be protected under Article 25 and Article 26 . Key Developments Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that health considerations alone may suffice to curb the practice under Article 25 . Senior Advocate Siddharth Lutha highlighted that FGM is performed on girls as young as seven, causing irreversible loss of at least 10,000 nerve endings and affecting sexual, reproductive and emotional health. The bench noted that the practice also violates the principle of bodily autonomy and therefore falls foul of the constitutional limitations. Justice BV Nagarathna pointed out that the practice can be struck down on the ground of morality under Article 25 . Advocate Nizam Pasha contested the claim of excommunication, arguing that non‑adherence carries no worldly sanction, though spiritual consequences may be perceived. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah warned against equating FGM with male circumcision, stressing the distinct public‑health implications. Important Facts • The procedure involves removal of the clitoral prepuce, termed “hoodectomy” by some practitioners, leading to permanent loss of sensory tissue. • Over 59 countries have enacted bans on FGM, reflecting a global consensus on its violation of human rights. • The petitioners argue that the practice is not an essential religious rite and therefore cannot be shielded by the protection granted under Article 26 . UPSC Relevance The case illustrates the delicate balance between freedom of religion and other fundamental rights such as health, gender equality and bodily integrity. It underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting constitutional provisions when cultural practices clash with modern human‑rights standards. Aspirants should note the jurisprudential test of "essential religious practice" and the permissible restrictions on religious freedom (public order, morality, health) – a recurring theme in GS2 (Polity) and GS4 (Ethics) papers. Way Forward The bench is likely to examine whether the practice can be classified as "essential" and whether it infringes on the rights of minors who cannot give consent. A definitive ruling could pave the way for legislative action or stricter enforcement of existing criminal provisions against bodily harm. For UPSC preparation, monitor subsequent judgments and any parliamentary response, as they will shape future discourse on religious freedom versus individual rights.

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> heard arguments on Thursday linking petitions against <span class="key-term" data-definition="Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) — practice involving partial or total removal of external female genitalia, recognized as a violation of human rights (GS4: Ethics)">FGM</span> with the ongoing <em>Sabarimala reference</em>. The bench examined whether the practice, prevalent in the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Dawoodi Bohra community — a sub‑sect of Shia Islam in India, known for distinct religious customs (GS1: Society)">Dawoodi Bohra</span> community, can be protected under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 of the Indian Constitution — gives religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li><strong>Justice Joymalya Bagchi</strong> emphasized that health considerations alone may suffice to curb the practice under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>.</li> <li>Senior Advocate <strong>Siddharth Lutha</strong> highlighted that FGM is performed on girls as young as seven, causing irreversible loss of at least <strong>10,000 nerve endings</strong> and affecting sexual, reproductive and emotional health.</li> <li>The bench noted that the practice also violates the principle of <span class="key-term" data-definition="bodily autonomy — right of individuals to control their own bodies without external coercion (GS4: Ethics)">bodily autonomy</span> and therefore falls foul of the constitutional limitations.</li> <li>Justice BV Nagarathna pointed out that the practice can be struck down on the ground of <em>morality</em> under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>.</li> <li>Advocate Nizam Pasha contested the claim of excommunication, arguing that non‑adherence carries no worldly sanction, though spiritual consequences may be perceived.</li> <li>Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah warned against equating FGM with male circumcision, stressing the distinct public‑health implications.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• The procedure involves removal of the clitoral prepuce, termed “hoodectomy” by some practitioners, leading to permanent loss of sensory tissue.<br> • Over <strong>59 countries</strong> have enacted bans on FGM, reflecting a global consensus on its violation of human rights.<br> • The petitioners argue that the practice is not an essential religious rite and therefore cannot be shielded by the protection granted under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 of the Indian Constitution — gives religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>. </p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>The case illustrates the delicate balance between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">freedom of religion</span> and other fundamental rights such as health, gender equality and bodily integrity. It underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting constitutional provisions when cultural practices clash with modern human‑rights standards. Aspirants should note the jurisprudential test of "essential religious practice" and the permissible restrictions on religious freedom (public order, morality, health) – a recurring theme in GS2 (Polity) and GS4 (Ethics) papers.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The bench is likely to examine whether the practice can be classified as "essential" and whether it infringes on the rights of minors who cannot give consent. A definitive ruling could pave the way for legislative action or stricter enforcement of existing criminal provisions against bodily harm. For UPSC preparation, monitor subsequent judgments and any parliamentary response, as they will shape future discourse on religious freedom versus individual rights.</p>

Quick Reference

Key Insight

SC probes FGM in Dawoodi Bohra, testing religious freedom vs health under Articles 25‑26

Key Facts

Supreme Court heard arguments linking FGM in the Dawoodi Bohra community to the Sabarimala case in 2026.
The procedure, termed “hoodectomy,” removes the clitoral prepuce, causing permanent loss of at least 10,000 nerve endings.
Over 59 countries have enacted bans on FGM, reflecting a global consensus on its human‑rights violation.
Petitioners contend that FGM is not an essential religious rite, so it cannot be shielded by Article 26.
Justices emphasized health, morality and bodily autonomy as permissible restrictions under Article 25.
Girls as young as seven are subjected to FGM, breaching consent norms and child‑rights protections.
A ruling declaring FGM non‑essential could trigger stricter enforcement of existing criminal provisions or new legislation.

Background

The case sits at the intersection of constitutional law and gender‑rights ethics, testing the "essential religious practice" test under Articles 25 and 26. It also raises public‑health and child‑protection concerns, themes recurrent in GS2 (Polity) and GS4 (Ethics).

UPSC Syllabus

Essay — Youth, Health and Welfare
Essay — Philosophy, Ethics and Human Values
Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
GS4 — Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationships
GS4 — Essence, determinants and consequences of Ethics in human actions
GS3 — Environmental Impact Assessment
GS2 — Historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
Essay — Society, Gender and Social Justice

Mains Angle

In a Mains answer, discuss how the judiciary balances freedom of religion with health, morality and gender equality, linking the SC's scrutiny of FGM to the broader jurisprudence on essential religious practices (GS2).

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

Supreme Court Reviews FGM in Dawoodi Bohra Community – Sabarimala Reference & Articles 25, 26

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