What Happened
- A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the Sabarimala review case along with a batch of connected matters on religious freedom, observed on April 17, 2026 that constitutional authorities must transcend personal faith when addressing religious questions.
- The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi, B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, and Prasanna Varale, is examining foundational questions about the scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26.
- The nine-judge bench is addressing the meaning of "morality" in Articles 25 and 26 — specifically, whether it means constitutional morality (the values underlying the Constitution) or popular/community morality (what religious communities regard as moral).
- The central question: Can a court substitute constitutional morality for the sincere beliefs of a religious community in determining whether a religious practice is protected?
- The Solicitor General urged the court to abandon the "Essential Religious Practices" (ERP) doctrine, arguing it makes courts de facto religious adjudicators on theological questions beyond their competence.
Static Topic Bridges
Article 25 — Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion
Article 25 is one of the most litigated provisions in the Constitution. It guarantees religious freedom but subjects it to several limitations that have generated decades of jurisprudence.
- Article 25(1): Subject to public order, morality, and health, and to the other provisions of Part III, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
- Article 25(2)(a): Nothing in Article 25(1) shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice
- Article 25(2)(b): The State may make laws providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus
- Key limitation: The word "morality" in Article 25(1) — the nine-judge bench is deciding whether this means constitutional morality or popular morality
- Landmark cases: Shirur Mutt case (Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, 1954) — first established the "essential religious practices" test; Sabarimala case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018) — 5-judge bench (4:1) allowed women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple; the 2018 judgment was then referred to the nine-judge bench
- The word in Hindi for "morality" in Articles 25 and 26 is "sadachar" — meaning approved custom or conduct — which some argue cannot support the concept of constitutional morality
Connection to this news: The court's observation that constitutional authorities must rise above personal beliefs is directed at BOTH judges (who might have personal religious views on practices like temple entry) AND public functionaries. This signals the court may ultimately anchor its analysis in constitutional values rather than majoritarian religious sentiment.
Article 26 — Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs
Article 26 is closely related to Article 25 but operates at the institutional level rather than the individual level. It protects the rights of religious denominations.
- Article 26: Subject to public order, morality, and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right — (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property (d) to administer such property in accordance with law
- "Denomination" — the Supreme Court in Shirur Mutt (1954) defined a religious denomination as a collection of individuals classed together under the same name; having a common faith and organisation; and designated by a distinctive name
- Key distinction from Article 25: Article 25 protects individual religious freedom; Article 26 protects institutional/denominational autonomy
- The "morality" word in Article 26 is the same as in Article 25 — the nine-judge bench is examining its meaning in both articles simultaneously
- Both Article 25 and 26 are subject to "public order, morality, and health" — the question is what "morality" means
Connection to this news: The Sabarimala case raised the question: if the Nair Service Society (the denominational body managing the temple) considers the exclusion of women of menstruating age an essential religious practice, can the constitutional guarantee under Article 26(b) ("manage its own affairs in matters of religion") protect that exclusion? The nine-judge bench's answer will define the scope of denominational autonomy for all religious communities.
Constitutional Morality vs Popular Morality
This is a crucial conceptual distinction in constitutional law with wide-ranging implications.
- "Constitutional morality": A term popularised in India by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his constituent assembly speech — means adherence to the constitutional framework itself, its values of equality, dignity, liberty, and fraternity. Constitutional morality prevails over popular sentiment.
- "Popular morality": What a community or society at large regards as morally acceptable — this can include religious custom, traditional practice, or majoritarian cultural norms
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) — striking down Section 377 IPC — the Supreme Court explicitly invoked constitutional morality over social morality in decriminalising consensual same-sex relations
- In the 2018 Sabarimala judgment (majority opinion, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud): Constitutional morality must override popular/religious morality — women's right to worship cannot be subordinated to a denominational exclusionary practice
- Dissent in Sabarimala 2018 (Justice Indu Malhotra): Courts should not interfere in essential religious practices; constitutional morality should not be used to reform deep theological commitments of a denomination
- Article 13 definition of "law": Can religious practices constitute "law" for the purpose of being struck down for violation of Part III? This is also before the nine-judge bench.
Connection to this news: The court's observation that constitutional authorities must transcend personal faith reflects the constitutional morality school — the idea that judges, when sitting as constitutional adjudicators, must apply the Constitution's values rather than their personal theological beliefs, however sincere.
Key Facts & Data
- Nine-judge bench composition: CJI Surya Kant + 8 Justices (Bagchi, Nagarathna, Mahadevan, Sundresh, Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Masih, Varale)
- Original Sabarimala 5-judge bench (2018): Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra — 4:1 in favour of allowing women's entry
- Reference to 9-judge bench: Made in 2019 review petitions — questions of law referred to a larger bench
- Article 25: Individual freedom of religion (subject to public order, morality, health)
- Article 26: Denominational autonomy (same limitations)
- Essential Religious Practices test: Established in Shirur Mutt (1954) — only practices "essential" to the religion are protected under Article 25/26 from state regulation
- Article 142: Supreme Court can pass orders necessary for "complete justice" — used in Sabarimala 2018 to direct implementation
- Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Supreme Court used constitutional morality to override popular morality
- The nine-judge bench is simultaneously examining 7+ connected religious freedom matters (mosques, dargahs, etc.) — making this the most comprehensive constitutional examination of religious freedom in India's judicial history