Supreme Court Starts Final Hearing on Women’s Access to Religious Places – Articles 25 & 26 in Focus — UPSC Current Affairs

The nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court has begun the final hearing on petitions challenging gender‑based exclusion from religious places, focusing on Articles 25 and 26. Arguments from the Solicitor General and the Union Government highlight the tension between legislative reform, constitutional rights, and Hinduism’s pluralistic traditions, making the case a key study for UPSC Polity and Society topics.

Overview The Supreme Court has begun the final hearing on petitions challenging gender‑based exclusion from places of worship. The bench will examine the constitutional validity of restricting women, especially those of menstruating age, from entering temples such as the Sabarimala Temple . The core issues revolve around Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution. Key Developments All nine judges of the bench are hearing the petitions, marking the final stage of the litigation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that age‑ and gender‑based restrictions are not discrimination but a matter for legislative reform. The 2018 five‑judge Constitution bench (4:1) had struck down the ban on women of menstruating age at Sabarimala, declaring the practice unconstitutional. In 2019, a separate five‑judge bench led by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a larger bench for a comprehensive verdict. The Union Government warned that a narrow definition of ‘religious denomination’ could undermine Hinduism’s pluralistic character. Important Facts The petitions challenge the constitutionality of gender‑based exclusion across multiple faiths, not just Hindu temples. The Union Government’s submission emphasizes that Hinduism comprises diverse sects, lineages, regional traditions and rituals, and any restrictive definition may "compress" this inherent diversity. The bench will interpret whether such restrictions violate the fundamental right to equality (Article 14) and non‑discrimination (Article 15) alongside Articles 25 and 26. UPSC Relevance Understanding this case is vital for GS2 (Polity) as it illustrates the interplay between constitutional provisions, judicial review, and legislative competence. It also touches upon GS1 (Society) themes of gender equality, secularism, and the pluralistic nature of Indian religions. Aspirants should note how the judiciary balances individual rights with collective religious sentiments, a recurring theme in past UPSC questions. Way Forward Future judgments may set precedents on: Defining ‘essential religious practices’ versus cultural customs. Scope of legislative intervention in religious reforms. Balancing gender equality with freedom of religion. A clear verdict could guide lawmakers on drafting reforms that respect constitutional mandates while preserving religious diversity.

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes involving the Union, states and fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has begun the final hearing on petitions challenging gender‑based exclusion from places of worship. The bench will examine the constitutional validity of restricting women, especially those of menstruating age, from entering temples such as the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala Temple — A prominent Ayyappa shrine in Kerala, historically barred to women of menstruating age, often cited in debates on religious freedom and gender equality (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala Temple</span>. The core issues revolve around <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — Provides the right to manage religious affairs, establish institutions and own property, subject to the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span> of the Constitution.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>All nine judges of the bench are hearing the petitions, marking the final stage of the litigation.</li> <li><strong>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta</strong> argued that age‑ and gender‑based restrictions are not discrimination but a matter for legislative reform.</li> <li>The 2018 five‑judge Constitution bench (4:1) had struck down the ban on women of menstruating age at Sabarimala, declaring the practice unconstitutional.</li> <li>In 2019, a separate five‑judge bench led by former CJI <strong>Ranjan Gogoi</strong> referred the matter to a larger bench for a comprehensive verdict.</li> <li>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Union Government — The central executive authority of India, responsible for policy formulation and representing the state in the Supreme Court (GS2: Polity)">Union Government</span> warned that a narrow definition of ‘religious denomination’ could undermine Hinduism’s pluralistic character.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The petitions challenge the constitutionality of gender‑based exclusion across multiple faiths, not just Hindu temples. The Union Government’s submission emphasizes that Hinduism comprises diverse sects, lineages, regional traditions and rituals, and any restrictive definition may "compress" this inherent diversity. The bench will interpret whether such restrictions violate the fundamental right to equality (Article 14) and non‑discrimination (Article 15) alongside Articles 25 and 26.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding this case is vital for GS2 (Polity) as it illustrates the interplay between constitutional provisions, judicial review, and legislative competence. It also touches upon GS1 (Society) themes of gender equality, secularism, and the pluralistic nature of Indian religions. Aspirants should note how the judiciary balances individual rights with collective religious sentiments, a recurring theme in past UPSC questions.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>Future judgments may set precedents on: <ul> <li>Defining ‘essential religious practices’ versus cultural customs.</li> <li>Scope of legislative intervention in religious reforms.</li> <li>Balancing gender equality with freedom of religion.</li> </ul> A clear verdict could guide lawmakers on drafting reforms that respect constitutional mandates while preserving religious diversity.</p>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay