<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 t
Loading page, please wait…