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 धर्म में राज्य के हस्तक्षेप पर सीमाएँ – Sabarimala Reference (Article 25(2)(b) Debate)

Supreme Court धर्म में राज्य के हस्तक्षेप पर सीमाएँ – Sabarimala Reference (Article 25(2)(b) Debate)
22 April 2026 को, Supreme Court की नौ‑जजों की बेंच ने Sabarimala सुनवाई के दौरान Article 25(2)(b) के तहत धार्मिक प्रथाओं में राज्य के हस्तक्षेप की सीमा की जांच की, यह रेखांकित किया कि कोई समान नियम स्थापित नहीं किया जा सकता और प्रत्येक मामले का मूल्यांकन उसके तथ्यों के आधार पर होना चाहिए। चर्चा में Essential Religious Practice परीक्षण, Directive Principles की भूमिका, और सामाजिक सुधार तथा संवैधानिक धार्मिक स्वतंत्रता के बीच नाज़ुक संतुलन को उजागर किया गया, जो UPSC Polity के लिए एक प्रमुख विषय है।
Supreme Court Observes Difficulty in Framing Uniform Rules for State Intervention in Religious Practices On 22 April 2026 , the nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Sabarimala reference. The Court reiterated that it cannot lay down blanket guidelines for future cases on when the State may intervene in religion under Article 25(2)(b) . Each situation will be judged on its own facts. Key Developments The Chief Justice emphasized that "social welfare and reform" is a broad term and that the State, as the people's representative, may act against social evils, but no universal rule can be set. Justice BV Nagarathna posed a hypothetical: if Kerala enacted a law permitting women aged 10‑50 to enter Sabarimala, would that be a valid reform or an infringement of essential religious practice? Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium argued that the Court must first examine whether the exclusion is rooted in ancient tradition, custom, or usage before deeming any State intervention permissible. Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the provision as a "narrow window" and queried whether the Directive Principles could justify interference. The bench revisited the Shirur Mutt judgment to underline the historical basis of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test – Judicial test to determine if a practice is essential to a religion, affecting its protection unde
  1. Home
  2. Prepare
  3. Current Affairs
  4. Supreme Court धर्म में राज्य के हस्तक्षेप पर सीमाएँ – Sabarimala Reference (Article 25(2)(b) Debate)
Login to bookmark articles
Login to mark articles as complete

Overview

gs.gs278% UPSC Relevance

SC warns against blanket rules for State interference in religion, impacting Article 25(2)(b) jurisprudence

Key Facts

  1. 22 April 2026: Supreme Court heard arguments on the Sabarimala reference concerning Article 25(2)(b).
  2. A nine‑judge bench presided by CJI Surya Kant, including Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
  3. The Court reiterated that "social welfare and reform" under Article 25(2)(b) is a broad concept and no uniform rule can be laid down for State intervention in religion.
  4. The bench examined whether a law permitting women aged 10‑50 to enter Sabarimala would constitute a valid reform or an infringement of an essential religious practice (ERP).
  5. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium warned that the phrase "social welfare and reform" could be misused as a cloak to curtail religious freedom.
  6. Justice Joymalya Bagchi described Article 25(2)(b) as a "narrow window" and queried the role of Directive Principles in justifying interference.
  7. The Court revisited the 1954 Shirur Mutt judgment to reaffirm the ERP test as the benchmark for distinguishing essential religious practices from cultural customs.

Background & Context

The debate centres on the constitutional balance between Fundamental Right 25 – freedom of religion – and the State's power to enact reforms for social welfare. This issue is pivotal for GS‑2 (Polity) as it tests the limits of legislative competence under Article 25(2)(b) and the applicability of the ERP test, a recurring theme in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Prelims_GS•Constitution and Political SystemGS2•Historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structurePrelims_CSAT•Decision MakingGS4•Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationshipsEssay•Society, Gender and Social JusticeGS2•Government policies and interventions for developmentGS2•Comparison with other countries constitutional schemesEssay•Philosophy, Ethics and Human ValuesGS2•Welfare schemes for vulnerable sectionsGS2•Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning

Mains Answer Angle

In a Mains answer, discuss how the Supreme Court's caution against blanket guidelines reflects the tension between religious liberty and social reform, linking it to Article 25(2)(b) and the ERP test. (GS‑2, likely asked in a ‘balance of rights and State power’ essay or case‑study).

Full Article

<h2>Supreme Court Observes Difficulty in Framing Uniform Rules for State Intervention in Religious Practices</h2> <p>On <strong>22 April 2026</strong>, the nine‑judge bench of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court (India) – The apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and has the final say on legal disputes (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> heard arguments in the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala Temple – A prominent Hindu shrine in Kerala whose entry rules for women have been the subject of constitutional litigation (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> reference. The Court reiterated that it cannot lay down blanket guidelines for future cases on when the State may intervene in religion under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(2)(b) – Constitutional provision allowing legislation for social welfare and reform that affects religious practice (GS2: Polity)">Article 25(2)(b)</span>. Each situation will be judged on its own facts.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The Chief Justice emphasized that "social welfare and reform" is a broad term and that the State, as the people's representative, may act against social evils, but no universal rule can be set.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice BV Nagarathna – A senior judge of the Supreme Court, known for her contributions to constitutional jurisprudence (GS2: Polity)">BV Nagarathna</span> posed a hypothetical: if Kerala enacted a law permitting women aged 10‑50 to enter Sabarimala, would that be a valid reform or an infringement of essential religious practice?</li> <li>Senior Advocate <span class="key-term" data-definition="Gopal Subramanium – Prominent Supreme Court lawyer, often appearing in constitutional matters (GS2: Polity)">Gopal Subramanium</span> argued that the Court must first examine whether the exclusion is rooted in ancient tradition, custom, or usage before deeming any State intervention permissible.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Joymalya Bagchi – Member of the bench, highlighted the narrow scope of legislative competence under Article 25(2)(b) (GS2: Polity)">Joymalya Bagchi</span> described the provision as a "narrow window" and queried whether the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Directive Principles of State Policy – Non‑justiciable guidelines in the Constitution that direct the State to promote welfare and social justice (GS2: Polity)">Directive Principles</span> could justify interference.</li> <li>The bench revisited the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Shirur Mutt judgment – 1954 Supreme Court case that upheld state regulation of temple endowments to ensure proper administration (GS2: Polity)">Shirur Mutt judgment</span> to underline the historical basis of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test – Judicial test to determine if a practice is essential to a religion, affecting its protection unde
Read Original on livelaw

Analysis

Practice Questions

Prelims
Easy
Prelims MCQ

मूल अधिकार – अनुच्छेद 25

1 marks
5 keywords
GS2
Medium
Mains Short Answer

न्यायिक परीक्षण – ERP

10 marks
5 keywords
GS2
Hard
Mains Essay

धर्म, राज्य हस्तक्षेप और संवैधानिक कानून

250 marks
7 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

SC warns against blanket rules for State interference in religion, impacting Article 25(2)(b) jurisprudence

Key Facts

  1. 22 April 2026: Supreme Court heard arguments on the Sabarimala reference concerning Article 25(2)(b).
  2. A nine‑judge bench presided by CJI Surya Kant, including Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
  3. The Court reiterated that "social welfare and reform" under Article 25(2)(b) is a broad concept and no uniform rule can be laid down for State intervention in religion.
  4. The bench examined whether a law permitting women aged 10‑50 to enter Sabarimala would constitute a valid reform or an infringement of an essential religious practice (ERP).
  5. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium warned that the phrase "social welfare and reform" could be misused as a cloak to curtail religious freedom.
  6. Justice Joymalya Bagchi described Article 25(2)(b) as a "narrow window" and queried the role of Directive Principles in justifying interference.
  7. The Court revisited the 1954 Shirur Mutt judgment to reaffirm the ERP test as the benchmark for distinguishing essential religious practices from cultural customs.

Background

The debate centres on the constitutional balance between Fundamental Right 25 – freedom of religion – and the State's power to enact reforms for social welfare. This issue is pivotal for GS‑2 (Polity) as it tests the limits of legislative competence under Article 25(2)(b) and the applicability of the ERP test, a recurring theme in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

UPSC Syllabus

  • Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
  • GS2 — Historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
  • Prelims_CSAT — Decision Making
  • GS4 — Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationships
  • Essay — Society, Gender and Social Justice
  • GS2 — Government policies and interventions for development
Explore:Current Affairs·Editorial Analysis·Govt Schemes·Study Materials·Previous Year Questions·UPSC GPT
  • GS2 — Comparison with other countries constitutional schemes
  • Essay — Philosophy, Ethics and Human Values
  • GS2 — Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections
  • GS2 — Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning

    • Mains Angle

    In a Mains answer, discuss how the Supreme Court's caution against blanket guidelines reflects the tension between religious liberty and social reform, linking it to Article 25(2)(b) and the ERP test. (GS‑2, likely asked in a ‘balance of rights and State power’ essay or case‑study).

    Supreme Court धर्म में राज्य के हस्तक्षेप ... | UPSC Current Affairs