Supreme Court Hearing on Sabarimala Review: SG Mehta Rejects ‘Constitutional Morality’ as Judicial Standard

Key Insight

Supreme Court debates ‘constitutional morality’ in Sabarimala case – a test of judicial activism vs restraint.

Key Facts

1. The Sabarimala reference case is being heard by a nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court (2026).
2. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed using ‘constitutional morality’ and ‘transformative constitutionalism’ as independent standards for reviewing Article 25 claims.
3. Justice B.V. Nagarathna argued that constitutional interpretation must be dynamic, reflecting evolving public morality.
4. The dispute centres on whether the Constitution can be a tool for social transformation to override traditional religious practices under Article 25 (Freedom of Religion).
5. The debate invokes the Basic Structure Doctrine and the interplay of Articles 14, 15, 21 with Articles 25 and 26.
6. Transformative constitutionalism, as a judicial doctrine, seeks to align law with progressive social values, but its precise definition remains contested.

Background

The hearing pits two competing jurisprudential approaches – a restrained reading of religious freedom versus a progressive, activist use of the Constitution to reshape society. It touches core UPSC GS‑2 themes of separation of powers, judicial activism, and the balance between fundamental rights and religious rights.

UPSC Syllabus

• Essay — Philosophy, Ethics and Human Values
• GS4 — Essence, determinants and consequences of Ethics in human actions
• GS2 — Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning
• Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
• GS4 — Dimensions of ethics - private and public relationships

Mains Angle

In GS‑2, candidates can discuss whether the judiciary should employ constitutional morality to reinterpret Article 25, linking it to the Basic Structure Doctrine and the limits of judicial activism.