Why Is the Sabarimala Case Back in the News?
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is currently reviewing broad constitutional questions arising from the Sabarimala Case — Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018). The reference examines the balance between religious freedom, gender equality and the judiciary’s role as social reformer. For UPSC 2026 candidates with Riyasat IAS Mentorship, this is a model case study linking GS-I (society), GS-II (polity) and Essay. Track similar updates in our Current Affairs section.
The Court must reconcile four constitutional articles (25, 26, 14–15, 17) with the contested doctrine of Essential Religious Practices (ERP). Our Foundation Mentorship (English) places this within “Transformative Constitutionalism”.
Sabarimala Case — Constitutional Facts for UPSC Prelims
| Article | Core Principle | Issue in Sabarimala |
| Article 25 | Individual religious freedom | Women’s right to worship |
| Article 26 | Religious denominations autonomy | Are Ayyappa devotees a separate denomination? |
| Articles 14–15 | Equality & non-discrimination | Ban based on menstruation |
| Article 17 | Abolition of untouchability | Does exclusion amount to untouchability? |
| Key Doctrine | Essential Religious Practice (ERP) | Originated in Shirur Mutt case, 1954 |
| Referring Bench | Nine-judge Constitution Bench | 2019 reference order |
4 Powerful Constitutional Questions in the Sabarimala Case
1. Individual Freedom vs. Denominational Autonomy
Article 25 protects individual worship; Article 26 protects denominational self-governance. When the two clash, which prevails? In Sabarimala, the Court ruled that Ayyappa devotees are not a separate denomination — a point our UPSC Mentorship Program analyses as a key interpretive move.
2. The “Essential Religious Practice” Doctrine
The ERP doctrine lets courts decide what is integral to a religion. Critics argue this is a subjective judicial exercise better left to scriptures and communities. Over time, the doctrine has narrowed — only practices whose absence would fundamentally change the religion now qualify.
3. Constitutional Morality vs. Popular Morality
Constitutional morality requires the Court to privilege constitutional values over majoritarian sentiment. Critics fear this concept is too subjective and risks overriding lived religious practice. Such debates are covered across Secure Prelims Program 2026 modules on polity.
4. Gender-Based Exclusion as Untouchability?
Justice Chandrachud’s 2018 opinion invoked Article 17 to treat menstruation-based exclusion as a form of untouchability — a bold interpretive leap. Our YATHARTH All India Mock Prelims has sample questions on this exact area.
Denomination Test — Shirur Mutt (1954)
| Criterion | Meaning |
| Common Faith | Shared religious beliefs |
| Common Organisation | Institutional structure |
| Distinctive Name | Identity separate from the parent religion |
| 2018 Holding | Ayyappa devotees fail the denomination test |
Wider Implications for Indian Constitutional Law
Transformative Constitutionalism
Transformative constitutionalism treats the Constitution as a living document meant to transform social practice, not merely preserve inherited hierarchies. Under this lens, exclusion of women from worship becomes an anti-constitutional practice even if rooted in tradition. The 2018 majority leaned on this framework.
Judicial Activism vs. Legislative Restraint
Critics contend that social reform of religion should come from elected legislatures or community dialogue, not from courts. Supporters reply that fundamental rights are counter-majoritarian shields — their enforcement cannot wait for legislative consensus that rarely arrives.
Precedent Ripple Effects
The reference’s outcome will ripple beyond Sabarimala — to Muslim women’s entry into mosques, Parsi intermarriage disqualifications, and female genital cutting practices — all pending before the Supreme Court. The Court’s test for “essential religious practice” and “denomination” will effectively set the boundaries of religious reform for the next decade.
UPSC Relevance — Sabarimala Case
For Prelims:
- Articles 25, 26, 14, 15, 17 of the Constitution of India
- Shirur Mutt Case, 1954 — origin of ERP doctrine
- Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, 2018
- Concept of constitutional morality (Dr. Ambedkar)
- Transformative constitutionalism
For Mains (GS Paper I — Society; GS Paper II — Polity; Essay):
- Judicial review of religious practices
- Gender justice and social reform through constitutional routes
- Balancing religious autonomy with fundamental rights
- Parallel reading in Prelims English programme and Prelims Hindi programme.
| 📝 Practice Mains Question (GS Paper II, 250 words / 15 marks) “The doctrine of Essential Religious Practices has given the judiciary the power to interfere excessively in the sphere of religion.” Critically analyze this statement with special reference to the Sabarimala case. |
Conclusion
The Sabarimala Case is not merely about temple entry; it tests how constitutional values harmonise with ancient religious traditions in modern India. The judiciary must protect both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Begin structured UPSC 2026 preparation with Riyasat IAS Mentorship — admissions open.
Also Read
- Best IAS Mentorship Program in India
- Riyasat IAS Mentorship Program 2026
- UPSC Prelims Mock Test Strategy
- Signs You Need a Prelims Mentor
- 60 Days UPSC Preparation Strategy
- Secure Prelims Program 2026
- YATHARTH All India Mock Prelims
- Essay Foundation Resources
- Foundation Mentorship (English)
- Foundation Mentorship (Hindi)
External References