Union Govt Seeks Reversal of 2018 Sabarimala Verdict – SG Tushar Mehta’s Arguments Before 9‑Judge Supreme Court Bench — UPSC Current Affairs

The Union Government, through Solicitor General <span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General — The Union’s chief legal advisor who represents the government before the Supreme Court (GS2: Polity)">Tushar Mehta</span>, urged the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body with the power to interpret the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> to declare the 2018 Sabarimala judgment a wrong law, arguing that the ban on women’s entry is based on age, not untouchability. The reference raises seven constitutional questions on Articles <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)">25</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — Grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion (GS2: Polity)">26</span>, with implications for the doctrine of essential religious practices and constitutional morality.

Overview The Union Government appeared before a nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, contending that the 2018 judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple was wrongly decided and must be declared a wrong law. Key Developments Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the ban on women’s entry is based solely on age, not on the constitutional prohibition of untouchability under Article 17 . He warned against the uncritical import of Western notions of patriarchy and gender stereotypes, emphasizing India’s distinct civilisational values. The SG clarified that the reference before the Constitution Bench is broader, dealing with the interpretation of Article 25 and Article 26 , not merely the Sabarimala dispute. The bench will confine its discussion to seven constitutional questions, not the merits of the 2018 verdict. Important Constitutional Questions Framed by the 9‑Judge Bench Scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 . Inter‑play between individual rights under Article 25 and denominational rights under Article 26 . Whether rights under Article 26 are subject to other Part III provisions beyond public order, morality and health. Meaning and extent of ‘morality’ in Articles 25 and 26, including the concept of constitutional morality. Extent of judicial review over religious practices under Article 25 . Interpretation of “Sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b). Whether a non‑member of a religious denomination can file a PIL challenging that denomination’s practice. Legal Doctrines in Focus The SG criticised the judicially evolved essential religious practices test, arguing that it is the legislature, not the judiciary, that should decide what constitutes a reformable practice under Article 25(2)(b). He also highlighted the need to distinguish constitutional morality from societal notions of gender roles. UPSC Relevance This reference touches upon core GS 2 topics: the balance between individual fundamental rights and religious freedom, the limits of judicial intervention, and the role of the legislature in reforming personal laws. Understanding the nuances of Articles 25, 26 and 17, as well as doctrines like essential religious practices and constitutional morality, is essential for answering questions on secularism, judicial review, and gender justice in the Civil Services Examination. Way Forward The bench is expected to deliver a judgment that clarifies the scope of Articles 25 and 26, potentially redefining the parameters of judicial review in matters of religion. A pronouncement favoring legislative primacy could pave the way for Parliament‑driven reforms in personal and religious laws, while a broader judicial interpretation may reinforce constitutional morality as a check on regressive customs.

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Union Government — Central government of India, responsible for policy formulation and representation before the Supreme Court (GS2: Polity)">Union Government</span> appeared before a nine‑judge bench of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body with the power to interpret the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on Tuesday, contending that the 2018 judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple was wrongly decided and must be declared a wrong law.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li><strong>Solicitor General <span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General — The Union’s chief legal advisor who represents the government before the Supreme Court (GS2: Polity)">Tushar Mehta</span></strong> argued that the ban on women’s entry is based solely on age, not on the constitutional prohibition of untouchability under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 17 — Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice (GS2: Polity)">Article 17</span>.</li> <li>He warned against the uncritical import of Western notions of patriarchy and gender stereotypes, emphasizing India’s distinct civilisational values.</li> <li>The SG clarified that the reference before the Constitution Bench is broader, dealing with the interpretation of <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 — Grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>, not merely the Sabarimala dispute.</li> <li>The bench will confine its discussion to seven constitutional questions, not the merits of the 2018 verdict.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Constitutional Questions Framed by the 9‑Judge Bench</h3> <ul> <li>Scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under <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>.</li> <li>Inter‑play between individual rights under <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 denominational rights under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — Grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>.</li> <li>Whether rights under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — Grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span> are subject to other Part III provisions beyond public order, morality and health.</li> <li>Meaning and extent of ‘morality’ in Articles 25 and 26, including the concept of constitutional morality.</li> <li>Extent of judicial review over religious practices under <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>.</li> <li>Interpretation of “Sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b).</li> <li>Whether a non‑member of a religious denomination can file a PIL challenging that denomination’s practice.</li> </ul> <h3>Legal Doctrines in Focus</h3> <p>The SG criticised the judicially evolved <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential religious practices test — A jurisprudential tool used by courts to determine which religious rites are core to a faith and therefore protected from state interference (GS2: Polity)">essential religious practices</span> test, arguing that it is the legislature, not the judiciary, that should decide what constitutes a reformable practice under Article 25(2)(b). He also highlighted the need to distinguish <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional morality — The principle that constitutional values, such as liberty, equality and secularism, guide the interpretation of rights, superseding societal or religious customs (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span> from societal notions of gender roles.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>This reference touches upon core GS 2 topics: the balance between individual fundamental rights and religious freedom, the limits of judicial intervention, and the role of the legislature in reforming personal laws. Understanding the nuances of Articles 25, 26 and 17, as well as doctrines like essential religious practices and constitutional morality, is essential for answering questions on secularism, judicial review, and gender justice in the Civil Services Examination.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The bench is expected to deliver a judgment that clarifies the scope of Articles 25 and 26, potentially redefining the parameters of judicial review in matters of religion. A pronouncement favoring legislative primacy could pave the way for Parliament‑driven reforms in personal and religious laws, while a broader judicial interpretation may reinforce constitutional morality as a check on regressive customs.</p>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay