Supreme Court Bench Warns Against Diluting Religion in Sabarimala Case – Article 25(2)(b) vs Article 26(b) Debate

Supreme Court Bench Warns Against Diluting Religion in Sabarimala Case – Article 25(2)(b) vs Article 26(b) Debate The Supreme Court on 15 April 2026, while hearing the Sabarimala reference , observed that “in the name of social welfare and reform, you can’t hollow out a religion.” The comment was made by Justice BV Nagarathna during arguments presented by Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi . Key Developments Justice Nagarathna cautioned that the State cannot use Article 25(2)(b) as a blanket tool to erode religious identity. Singhvi argued that the right under Article 26(b) should coexist with the social‑reform clause of 25(2)(b), without invoking the essential religious practices doctrine . Reference was made to the Sardar Syedna Judgment , which struck down the Bombay Prevention of Ex‑communication Act on similar grounds. Justice MM Sundresh suggested that statutes like the Hindu Succession Act fall within the ambit of social welfare without violating religious freedom. Important Facts The bench comprises Chief Justice Surya Kant and eight other judges, marking the fourth day of arguments. Singhvi contended that Article 25(2)(b) is a clarificatory, not a derogatory, provision and should not diminish the core right under Article 25(1). He emphasized that the State’s power to legislate on personal laws can be viewed as “social reform” within the meaning of 25(2)(b). The debate centers on whether the Constitution allows the State to intervene in “essential” versus “non‑essential” religious practices. UPSC Relevance Understanding the tension between Article 25(2)(b) and Article 26(b) is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) questions on religious freedom, secularism, and the limits of state intervention. The case also illustrates how the judiciary balances constitutional guarantees with social‑reform agendas, a recurring theme in past UPSC essays and case‑study questions. Way Forward Legal scholars anticipate that the bench will delineate a nuanced test: State legislation under 25(2)(b) must pursue genuine social welfare without “hollowing out” the essential core of a religion. The outcome will shape future legislation on temple entry, personal laws, and other reforms affecting religious institutions. Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its doctrinal language, as it will likely be cited in subsequent debates on the essential‑practice doctrine and the scope of Article 25.