SC on Sabarimala Review: Courts Cannot Herald Religious Reform

The Supreme Court of India recently observed that courts cannot act as heralds of religious reform. This statement was made during the hearing of the Sabarimala temple review petitions. While senior advocates argued that religions must adapt to remain relevant, the apex court emphasized that its role is not to actively reform religious practices. This development is crucial for understanding the ongoing debate between the fundamental right to equality and the right to freely practice religion in India.

What Happened

The Supreme Court stated that the judiciary cannot take on the role of reforming religions. This observation occurred during the hearing of review petitions related to the Sabarimala temple case. The court was responding to arguments that religious practices must evolve.

When & Where

The oral observation was made on April 29, 2026, at the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi.

Who Is Involved

Supreme Court of India: The apex judicial body hearing the case.
Indira Jaising: Senior advocate representing women who entered the temple.
Sabarimala Temple Authorities: Defending the traditional practices of the shrine.

How It Works

The Supreme Court hears review petitions against its own previous judgments.
Arguments are presented regarding the balance between constitutional morality and religious traditions.
The court applies legal tests to see if a religious practice violates fundamental rights.
It decides whether a practice is essential to the religion before intervening.

Why It Matters

This highlights the tension between the Right to Equality and the Right to Freedom of Religion. It touches upon the limits of judicial intervention. It is highly relevant for the polity syllabus under fundamental rights and the role of the judiciary.

Historical Background

The Sabarimala restriction barred women of menstruating age (10-50 years).
In 2018, a 4:1 Supreme Court verdict struck down this ban, calling it unconstitutional.
Review petitions were filed against the 2018 verdict, leading to further constitutional references.

Previous Related Events

The Triple Talaq judgment (2017) saw the court strike down a religious practice.
The Shirur Mutt Case (1954) established the "Essential Religious Practices" test.
The formation of a nine-judge bench to hear broader questions of faith and women's rights across religions.

Static GK Connection

This connects directly to Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) and Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs). It also links to Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination).

Future Impact

The final judgment will set a massive precedent for all future cases involving gender discrimination in religious places. It will clarify the boundaries of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine. It may also impact practices in other religions currently under judicial scrutiny.

🔑 Key Points for Revision

SC observed courts cannot reform religion.
Observation made during Sabarimala review petitions.
2018 SC verdict allowed women of all ages to enter the temple.
Core conflict is between Article 14 (Equality) and Article 25/26 (Religious Freedom).
Indira Jaising argued religion must adapt to remain relevant.
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine is central to such cases.
Shirur Mutt Case (1954) birthed the ERP test.
A nine-judge bench is examining broader issues of faith and rights.
The issue raises questions about "Constitutional Morality".
Final ruling will impact gender-related religious practices across India.

🧠 Concept Link (Static GK Deep Dive)

Core Concept: Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine

The ERP doctrine was formulated by the Supreme Court in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case.
It determines which religious practices are protected under Article 25 and 26.
Only practices that are "essential" and "integral" to a religion get constitutional protection.
If a practice is not essential, the state can regulate or ban it.
It connects to the current event as the Sabarimala ban was debated on whether it was an essential practice.
The doctrine gives courts the power to interpret religious texts to find what is essential.
Historically, this test has been used in cases like the Tandava dance for Anand Margis.
India uses this doctrine to balance secularism with deep-rooted religious diversity.
Globally, courts usually avoid interpreting religious texts, making the Indian approach unique.
The common exam angle focuses on the conflict between ERP and individual fundamental rights.

❓ Practice MCQs

Q1. Which constitutional article grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion?
A) Article 21
B) Article 25
C) Article 26
D) Article 29

Answer: C) Article 26

Explanation: Article 26 specifically gives religious denominations the right to establish institutions and manage their own religious affairs.

Q2. The 'Essential Religious Practices' doctrine was first established in which of the following cases?
A) Kesavananda Bharati Case
B) Shirur Mutt Case
C) Shah Bano Case
D) S.R. Bommai Case

Answer: B) Shirur Mutt Case

Explanation: The Supreme Court coined the Essential Religious Practices doctrine in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case to decide which practices get constitutional protection.

Q3. The 2018 Sabarimala verdict originally struck down the ban on entry of women in which age group?
A) 15-45 years
B) 10-50 years
C) 18-60 years
D) 12-55 years

Answer: B) 10-50 years

Explanation: The ban specifically restricted the entry of women of menstruating age, defined historically as between 10 and 50 years.

Q4. Who was the senior advocate appearing for the women seeking to enforce their right to worship in the recent Sabarimala review hearing?
A) Harish Salve
B) Prashant Bhushan
C) Indira Jaising
D) Mukul Rohatgi

Answer: C) Indira Jaising

Explanation: Senior advocate Indira Jaising argued before the court that religion must mend to remain relevant in the modern era.

Q5. The conflict in the Sabarimala case is primarily seen as a clash between which two fundamental rights?
A) Right to Life and Right to Education
B) Right to Equality and Right to Freedom of Religion
C) Right to Property and Right to Constitutional Remedies
D) Right against Exploitation and Cultural Rights

Answer: B) Right to Equality and Right to Freedom of Religion

Explanation: The case pits Article 14 (Equality) and Article 15 against Articles 25 and 26 (Religious Freedom).

Q6. Regarding the Supreme Court's approach to religious reforms, which statement reflects its recent observation?
A) Courts must actively reform all religious texts.
B) Courts cannot act as the heralds of religious reform.
C) The State legislature is the only body that can reform religion.
D) Religious reforms are only possible through a constitutional amendment.

Answer: B) Courts cannot act as the heralds of religious reform.

Explanation: The Supreme Court recently observed that it is not the judiciary's role to herald reforms in religious practices.

📜 Previous Year Question Style (PYQ)

PYQ 1:

Consider the following statements regarding the Right to Freedom of Religion in India:

1. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience to all persons, subject to public order, morality, and health.
2. The 'Essential Religious Practices' test is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 1 only
B) 2 only
C) Both 1 and 2
D) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: A) 1 only

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect because the ERP test is a judicial innovation from the Shirur Mutt case (1954) and is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

PYQ 2:

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court of India often intervenes in religious matters to uphold constitutional morality.

Reason (R): The Constitution strictly prohibits any state intervention in religious affairs.

A) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
B) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
C) A is true, but R is false.
D) A is false, but R is true.

Answer: C) A is true, but R is false.

Explanation: The Supreme Court does intervene (like in Triple Talaq or the original Sabarimala verdict) to protect fundamental rights. However, the Reason is false because Indian secularism is not a strict separation; it allows the state to intervene in religion for social reform or to maintain public order.

✍️ Mains Answer Pointers

Question: Evaluate the role of the judiciary in reforming religious practices in India. Do you agree that constitutional morality should override traditional religious customs? (250 words)

Introduction: Briefly define constitutional morality and mention the recent SC observation on the limits of judicial intervention in faith.
Political Dimension: Discuss the balance of power; the judiciary's role is to interpret the law, while massive social reforms are often better driven organically or by the legislature.
Social Dimension: Highlight how judicial intervention (like striking down Triple Talaq or untouchability) has historically protected marginalized groups and women's rights.
Legal Dimension: Explain the 'Essential Religious Practices' doctrine and how it acts as a test for courts to decide whether to intervene.
Religious Dimension: Mention the argument that forced top-down legal reforms can cause backlash, and religions should organically evolve (as argued by advocates in the Sabarimala review).
Conclusion: Conclude that while courts cannot be the sole drivers of religious reform, they must act as a shield when fundamental rights are grossly violated by customs.
Suggested Additions: Include a flowchart showing the conflict between Article 14/15/21 and Article 25/26, with the ERP doctrine acting as the filter.

⚠️ Examiner Trap

Trap 1: Students often confuse the Right to Freedom of Religion as an absolute right. The correct fact is that it is strictly subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
Trap 2: A common wrong assumption is that the Essential Religious Practices doctrine is a constitutional provision. The reality is that it is entirely a judicial creation originating from the 1954 Shirur Mutt case.

🧭 Exam Tip

Prelims papers frequently test the exact wording and restrictions of Articles 25 and 26. In Mains, expect analytical questions on the clash between constitutional morality and religious freedom in GS Paper 2, where you must cite the Sabarimala review and the Essential Religious Practices doctrine.