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

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.