Why in News?

The ongoing hearings in the Supreme Court of India on the Sabarimala reference have reopened fundamental constitutional questions regarding the relationship between religion, the state, and individual rights.

The issue has also exposed internal contradictions within the ruling establishment, particularly between the Government of India and various Hindu religious organisations over the demand to free temples from state control.

At its core, the debate is not merely about Sabarimala but about the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 and the limits of state intervention in religious affairs.

UPSC Relevance:

GS-II: Fundamental Rights, Role of Judiciary, Judicial activism, religious freedom, Secularism, State vs Religion, Judicial Overreach,

Background: From Sabarimala Judgment to Constitutional Reference

The controversy originates from the landmark judgment in:

• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala

In this case, the Supreme Court:

• Struck down the ban on entry of women of menstruating age
• Upheld equality and individual rights over religious custom

However, due to broader constitutional questions, the Court referred key issues to a nine-judge bench to clarify:

• Scope of religious freedom
• Rights of denominations
• Limits of judicial review in religious matters

Core Constitutional Issue: Article 25 vs Article 26

The central debate revolves around the interplay between Article 25 and Article 26.

Article 25: Individual Religious Freedom

• Guarantees freedom of conscience and right to profess, practice and propagate religion
• Subject to:
  • Public order
  • Morality
  • Health
• Allows the State to:
  • Introduce social reform
  • Open religious institutions to all sections

Article 26: Rights of Religious Denominations

• Grants religious groups the right to:
  • Manage their own religious affairs
  • Own and administer property
• Also subject to:
  • Public order, morality, and health

What is the Conflict?

The issue arises when:

• Individual rights (Article 25) clash with
• Group autonomy (Article 26)

Example:
Women’s entry into Sabarimala involves:

• Individual right to worship
  vs
• Denominational claim to preserve tradition

Position of the Government

The Government of India has taken a balanced but cautious stance.

Key arguments:

1) The government opposes complete withdrawal of state control over temples, despite political narratives supporting it.

2) Govt argues that:

• Appointment of priests (archakas) is not a secular activity
• Religious functions should remain within the domain of the denomination

3) Govt maintains that:

• Article 26 rights are important
• But cannot be treated as absolute or isolated

Thus, the government supports a middle path, avoiding both:

• Total state control
• Absolute denominational autonomy

Position of Hindu Religious Organisations

Various Hindu groups argue for greater autonomy of temples.

Key demands:

• End state control over temple administration
• Allow denominations to manage:
  • Finances
  • Rituals
  • Appointments

Constitutional argument:

They assert that:

• Article 26(b) gives fundamental right to manage religious affairs
• Article 25(2) is only an enabling provision, not superior to Article 26

Thus, they argue that: Denominational rights should prevail over individual claims in certain contexts

Judicial Concerns and Observations

Judges of the Supreme Court of India have raised important concerns.

Key issues highlighted:

First, if Article 26 is given absolute primacy:

• It may justify exclusion of certain groups (e.g., Dalits, women)
• This could violate constitutional equality

Second, the Court emphasized:

• Religious institutions must remain inclusive
• Exclusionary practices may harm the broader interests of religion itself

Thus, the judiciary is attempting to maintain a balance between:

• Religious autonomy
• Constitutional morality and equality

Broader Constitutional Themes

1. Secularism in India

Indian secularism is not strict separation but principled distance.

• State can intervene in religion for:
  • Social reform
  • Equality

But excessive control may violate religious freedom.

2. Essential Religious Practices Doctrine

The Court often uses this doctrine to decide:

• What constitutes “essential” religious practice

However, this doctrine has been criticized for:

• Allowing courts to act as theologians
• Leading to inconsistency

3. Constitutional Morality

The debate also ties into constitutional morality, as discussed by B. R. Ambedkar.

• Courts may prioritize:
  • Equality
  • Dignity
  • Individual rights

Over:

• Traditional practices

4. Temple Administration Issue

Historically many temples are under state control (especially in South India)

Criticism includes:

• Government control over temple finances
• Political interference
• Unequal treatment compared to other religions

Key Constitutional Questions Before the Court

The nine-judge bench is examining:

• Can denominational rights override fundamental rights?
• Is Article 25(2) subordinate to Article 26?
• What is the extent of state regulation in religion?
• Can courts intervene in religious practices?

These questions have implications beyond Sabarimala, affecting:

• Mosques
• Churches
• Other religious institutions

Implications for Indian Democracy

Positive outcomes (if balanced properly)

• Protection of minority and individual rights
• Prevention of discriminatory practices
• Strengthening constitutional values

Risks

• Judicial overreach
• Politicisation of religion
• Internal conflicts within religious communities
• Weakening of institutional clarity

Way Forward

A balanced approach is needed to solve the tension between temple control, religious freedom, and constitutional values.

1. Clear Distinction

Clearly separate:

• Religious practices (core faith matters like rituals and priest qualifications) – these should be protected.
• Secular activities (money management, property, administration) – these can be regulated by the state.

2. Role of Judiciary

• Apply consistent principles in all cases.
• Avoid too much reliance on vague or subjective ideas.
• Give clear reasons in judgments.

3. Role of the State (Government)

• Reduce unnecessary and arbitrary control over temples.
• Ensure transparency and accountability in temple administration.

4. Guiding Principle

Constitutional morality should guide decisions, but in a balanced way. It must promote:

• Equality
• Dignity
• Social reform

without destroying genuine religious traditions.

Conclusion

The Sabarimala reference case represents a defining moment in Indian constitutional law. It is not merely about temple entry but about reconciling faith with constitutional values.

The challenge lies in ensuring that:

• Religious freedom is respected
• But not at the cost of equality and justice

Ultimately, the Constitution seeks to create a society where tradition evolves in harmony with fundamental rights, not in conflict with them.

Practice Questions:

Consider the following statements regarding Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution:

1. Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion only to Indian citizens.
2. Article 26 grants rights only to religious denominations, not individuals.
3. Both Articles are subject to public order, morality, and health.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A. 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: B

Which of the following situations would most likely fall under the regulatory power of the State under Article 25(2)?

A. Deciding essential rituals of a temple
B. Appointment of priests based on religious customs
C. Regulation of temple finances and administration
D. Determining theological doctrines

Answer: C

Consider the following statements regarding religious denominations:

1. A religious denomination must have a common faith and organization.
2. Every temple automatically qualifies as a religious denomination.
3. Denominational rights can be restricted in the interest of social reform.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A. 1 and 3 only
B. 1 only
C. 2 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: A

MAINS QUESTIONS

 “Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution often come into conflict in matters of religious practice.” Examine in the context of the Sabarimala case.

Case Study

A religious denomination restricts entry of a particular group citing tradition. The State intervenes citing equality and social reform.

• Identify the constitutional provisions involved.
• Suggest how the conflict should be resolved.