Supreme Court Sabarimala Hearing: TDB vs NSS on Article 25(2)(b) vs Article 26(b) Interpretation

Sabarimala Reference – Constitutional Clash over Entry and Ritual Rights On 15 April 2026 , the nine‑judge Supreme Court bench heard arguments on whether the right to manage religious affairs under Article 26(b) can override the State’s power to open Hindu temples to all Hindus under Article 25(2)(b) . The dispute pitted the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) against the Nair Service Society (NSS) and allied temple groups. Key Developments Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan (representing NSS) argued that Article 26(b) should prevail over Article 25(2)(b) , allowing denominations to decide who may enter the temple. Justice BV Nagarathna warned that excluding other Hindu denominations could damage Hinduism and may violate the "morality" ground in Article 26(b) . Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for TDB) contended that Article 25(2)(b) governs entry, while post‑entry rituals remain under Article 26(b) . He stressed that the provision does not apply to private temples. The TDB’s written submission advocated a “harmonious construction” of the two articles, allowing entry rights under Article 25(2)(b) but preserving ritual autonomy under Article 26(b) . Important Facts The bench comprises Chief Justice Surya Kant and eight other judges, including Justice BV Nagarathna . Both sides agree that any restriction on religious practice must be limited to the grounds of public order, morality, and health as per Article 26(b) . Disputes involving individual worship rights under Article 25(1) are subordinate to the denomination’s rights under Article 26(b) . The TDB emphasized that any law invoking Article 25(2)(b) must still respect the sanctum‑sanctorum protections of Article 26(b) . UPSC Relevance This case illustrates the delicate balance between individual religious freedoms (Articles 25 and 26) and the State’s power to enact social‑reform legislation (Article 25(2)(b)). Aspirants should note how the Constitution’s “basic structure” doctrine is applied to reconcile competing fundamental rights, a recurring theme in GS 2 (Polity) questions on secularism, minority rights, and judicial interpretation. Way Forward The Court is likely to issue a nuanced verdict that upholds the entry right under Article 25(2)(b) while permitting denominations to regulate internal rituals under Article 26(b) . Future jurisprudence may further clarify the scope of "public order, morality and health" as limiting factors, shaping policy debates on temple reforms and gender‑neutral entry across India.