Supreme Court Solicitor General Challenges Use of Constitutional Morality in Sabarimala Review

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta challenged the use of constitutional morality and transformative constitutionalism as standards under Article 25 in the Sabarimala reference, arguing they are subjective and unsuitable for judicial review. The Supreme Court bench, including CJI Surya Kant and Justice BV Nagarathna, is set to clarify the constitutional limits on religious practices, a development crucial for UPSC Polity preparation.

Overview During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned whether the concepts of constitutional morality and transformative constitutionalism can be used as standards under Article 25 . The debate centres on whether these doctrines are suitable yardsticks for adjudicating religious practices, especially the long‑standing entry ban for women at the Sabarimala temple. Key Developments SG Mehta asserted that (GS2: Polity) and that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment relied on a “vague” term. Justice BV Nagarathna clarified that the Court was not directly applying transformative constitutionalism but stressed the dynamic nature of morality. Justice (GS2: Polity) Bagchi emphasized that conscience of different sections can coexist within the constitutional framework. SG Mehta linked the controversy to the Joseph Shine judgment, questioning its reliance on constitutional morality. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reiterated that the ratio of the Joseph Shine case is not under review, but noted the gender‑bias issue in Section 497 IPC. Important Facts The nine‑judge bench comprises CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The reference seeks clarification on the constitutional parameters for religious practices under Article 25, especially after the 2018 judgment that allowed women of all ages to enter Sabarimala. UPSC Relevance Understanding the interplay between Article 25 and concepts like constitutional morality is essential for GS 2 (Polity) questions on fundamental rights, secularism, and judicial review. The debate also illustrates how the judiciary interprets the Constitution to balance individual rights with religious freedom—a recurring theme in UPSC essays on governance and constitutional ethics. Way Forward Future deliberations are likely to: (i) delineate the scope of constitutional morality as a interpretative tool, (ii) clarify whether transformative constitutionalism can be invoked in cases involving personal laws, and (iii) set a precedent for how the Supreme Court handles conflicts between social customs and constitutional mandates. Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its impact on jurisprudence concerning fundamental rights and the doctrine of basic structure.

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>During the hearing of the Sabarimala reference, the <span class="key-term" data-definition="The Solicitor General of India is the second‑highest law officer of the Government, assisting the Attorney General in representing the Union in the Supreme Court. (GS2: Polity)">Solicitor General</span> <strong>Tushar Mehta</strong> questioned whether the concepts of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional morality refers to the principle that constitutional values and norms should guide the interpretation of laws, transcending prevailing social mores. (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Transformative constitutionalism is a jurisprudential approach that seeks to use the Constitution as a tool for social change and progressive reform. (GS2: Polity)">transformative constitutionalism</span> can be used as standards under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>. The debate centres on whether these doctrines are suitable yardsticks for adjudicating religious practices, especially the long‑standing entry ban for women at the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala is a Hindu pilgrimage shrine in Kerala whose entry restrictions for women of menstruating age have been the subject of constitutional litigation. (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> temple.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>SG Mehta asserted that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional morality cannot be a ground of judicial review because it is subjective and varies between judges.">(GS2: Polity)</span> and that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment relied on a “vague” term.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice BV Nagarathna is a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, known for her contributions to constitutional jurisprudence. (GS2: Polity)">BV Nagarathna</span> clarified that the Court was not directly applying transformative constitutionalism but stressed the dynamic nature of morality.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Joymalya Bagchi is a Supreme Court judge who highlighted the role of conscience in Article 25(1).">(GS2: Polity)</span> Bagchi emphasized that conscience of different sections can coexist within the constitutional framework.</li> <li>SG Mehta linked the controversy to the <span class="key-term" data-definition="The 2018 Supreme Court judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India decriminalised adultery by striking down Section 497 of the IPC. (GS2: Polity)">Joseph Shine</span> judgment, questioning its reliance on constitutional morality.</li> <li>Chief Justice of India <strong>Surya Kant</strong> reiterated that the ratio of the Joseph Shine case is not under review, but noted the gender‑bias issue in Section 497 IPC.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The nine‑judge bench comprises CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The reference seeks clarification on the constitutional parameters for religious practices under Article 25, especially after the 2018 judgment that allowed women of all ages to enter Sabarimala.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding the interplay between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and concepts like constitutional morality is essential for GS 2 (Polity) questions on fundamental rights, secularism, and judicial review. The debate also illustrates how the judiciary interprets the Constitution to balance individual rights with religious freedom—a recurring theme in UPSC essays on governance and constitutional ethics.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>Future deliberations are likely to: (i) delineate the scope of constitutional morality as a interpretative tool, (ii) clarify whether transformative constitutionalism can be invoked in cases involving personal laws, and (iii) set a precedent for how the Supreme Court handles conflicts between social customs and constitutional mandates. Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its impact on jurisprudence concerning fundamental rights and the doctrine of basic structure.</p>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay