As the nine-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the Sabarimala temple row, various constitutional principles are being discussed around the seven key questions.
How do these questions reflect on the key principles of equality, religious freedom, essential religious practices, the definition of religious denomination, and the notion of morality? Let’s understand. But first, a brief overview of the 2018 judgement.
In 2018, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Indian Young Lawyers’ Association vs. State of Kerala, which struck down the ban on women of menstruating age from entering Sabarimala temple.
Ruling by a majority of 4:1, the court held that the ban on the entry of women under rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 15(1) and the right of religion under Article 25(1).
The court also ruled that the exclusion of women is not an essential religious practice (ERP) and that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
But Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman on the bench, held that equality guaranteed under Article 14 does not override the fundamental right to religion under Article 25, irrespective of whether the religious practice falling under Article 25 is rational.
Story continues below this ad
Acting on a number of petitions requesting the review of the judgement, a seven-judge bench was set up in 2019. The bench clubbed the Sabarimala review with similar cases from other faiths. Now, a new nine-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant is hearing the seven constitutional questions since April 7, 2026.
Seven questions and constitutional rights
The seven key questions for consideration before the court are as follows:
1. What is the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
2. What is the interplay between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26?
Story continues below this ad
3. Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, apart from public order, morality and health?
4. What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality’ under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and whether it is meant to include constitutional morality?
5. What is the scope and extent of judicial review of a religious practice under Article 25 of the Constitution?
6. What is the meaning of the expression “Sections of Hindus” occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution?
Story continues below this ad
7. Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?
These questions engage with significant constitutional principles, which are delineated below.
Freedom of religion and right to equality
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. However, like other rights in Part III of the Constitution, this freedom is not absolute.
Religious freedom under Article 25(1) is subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III. Further, Article 25(2) clarifies that this safeguard to religious freedom does not prevent the state from making laws for social welfare and reform.
Story continues below this ad
One of the key questions before the apex court in the Sabarimala case is whether a religious practice that excludes women on the basis of a biological factor amounts to discrimination, thereby violating the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14, 15, and 17.
It is also often argued that a religious practice can claim the protection under Article 26 only if it is shown to be associated with a distinct religious denomination. In the absence of denomination status, such practices become subject to other fundamental rights. Nevertheless, the core question remains whether equality provisions override the guarantee of religious freedom.
Religious denomination
Article 26 of the Constitution guarantees every religious denomination, or any section thereof, the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and own, acquire, and administer their property. It is also important to note that the usage “any section thereof” extends the right to sub-sections of religions as well.
However, the above provision leaves the term ‘denomination’ undefined. Therefore, it has been inviting judicial interpretations and interventions.
Story continues below this ad
The foundational case on religious freedom is The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras versus Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954). In this case, the Supreme Court held that religion also includes essential practices integral to the faith, and also drew a distinction between religious practices and secular activities associated with religion. The state could regulate the latter, especially where administration, property, and finances were concerned.
In S P Mittal versus Union of India case (1982), the court clarified three conditions to identify a denomination:
(1) A common faith
(2) Common organisation
(3) A distinct name
While Article 25 protects the religious freedom of individuals (subject to certain restrictions), Article 26 guarantees the rights of religious denominations and their sections. However, whether a group qualifies as the definition of a denomination is contestable and determined on a case-by-case basis.
Most importantly, recognition as a separate denomination enables a group to safeguard its core religious practices from external interference. Nevertheless, this claim itself is subject to judicial scrutiny. ERP doctrine is concomitant to this development.
Story continues below this ad
Post read questions
How does the Sabarimala case raise fundamental questions on the relationship between religious freedom and equality? Discuss.
To what extent can the state intervene in religious practices under Article 25(2)? Illustrate with reference to recent judicial developments.
Analyse the significance of the concept of “religious denomination”. How has the Supreme Court interpreted it?
Does the Sabarimala case reflect the evolving nature of judicial review in matters of religion?
Story continues below this ad
(Dileep P Chandran is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science in P M Government College, Chalakudy, Kerala.The second part of the article will analyse other key issues, namely essential religious practices, whether the court can be a theological arbiter, and the scope of morality.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
Gear up for UPSC Prelims 2026—Practice smarter, revise faster, and succeed with our Special Quiz Magazine. (Click Here)
Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for April 2026. Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
