PolityGovernance
News 19 of 30

SC Sabarimala Review Bench Debates 'Essential Religious Practice' vs 'Anti-Exclusion Test' Under Article 25

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCSSC GATeachingPrelims MediumMains HighStatic GK Link
25 Feb 2026
~2 min
Source: The Hindu
Key Data:Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 19654:1 majority verdict (2018)
Bodies:Supreme Court of India
Practice MCQs from today's news ▸
What This Article Covers

1.The Supreme Court's 2018 Sabarimala verdict allowed women of all ages entry, based on a 4:1 majority finding that the Ayyappa devotees were not a separate denomination and the ban violated women's rights under Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965.

2.The central legal dilemma is balancing Article 25's individual freedom of religion with Article 26's rights of religious denominations, requiring the Court to choose between the traditional 'essential religious practice' test and a new 'anti-exclusion test' focused on dignity.

3.The 'anti-exclusion test', proposed by Justice Chandrachud, would allow religious autonomy but intervene when practices lead to systematic exclusion impairing dignity or access to basic goods, shifting the inquiry from theology to constitutional morality.

The Big Picture
Prelims · MediumMains · High

The Supreme Court's nine-judge Bench is hearing review petitions on the Sabarimala case, a landmark test for India's religious freedom jurisprudence. The core legal debate is whether the 'essential religious practice' test should be replaced by Justice Chandrachud's proposed 'anti-exclusion test', which prioritizes individual dignity over religious customs that cause systematic exclusion. The outcome will set a precedent for cases involving Dawoodi Bohra excommunication and Parsi women's rights.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Original Sabarimala CaseIndian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018)
Original Majority4:1 (CJI Dipak Misra, Justices Khanwilkar, Nariman, Chandrachud vs Justice Indu Malhotra)
Key Legal ProvisionRule 3(b), Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965
Current Bench SizeNine-judge Constitution Bench

1-Minute Revision

  • ›Original Sabarimala Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018)
  • ›Original Majority: 4:1 (CJI Dipak Misra, Justices Khanwilkar, Nariman, Chandrachud vs Justice Indu Malhotra)
  • ›Target this Legal Point: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
  • ›Target this Data: Original Sabarimala verdict was 4:1 (CJI Dipak Misra, Justices Khanwilkar, Nariman, Chandrachud vs Justice Indu Malhotra).
  • ›Target this Case Law: Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018).

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

Q1Static LinkageEasy

The Sabarimala case primarily involves the interpretation of which two Articles of the Indian Constitution?

Q2Statement-basedHard

Consider the following statements regarding the Sabarimala case and its legal doctrines:

1. The 'essential religious practice' test requires courts to determine if a practice is critical to a religion, often involving theological interpretation.

2. Justice Indu Malhotra, in her dissent in the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, argued that the exclusion of women aged 10-50 was an 'essential religious practice' and thus protected.

3. The 'anti-exclusion test', as proposed, would prevent courts from intervening in any religious practice, even if it causes systematic exclusion.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMedium

What was the judge-wise majority in the Supreme Court's original 2018 Sabarimala verdict (Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala)?

Q4Application/ImpactMedium

According to the article, what is the primary objective of the proposed 'anti-exclusion test' in religious freedom jurisprudence?

All 25 MCQs ▸
You finished this topic
Explore Related Topics
Related Current Affairs
Polity Current Affairs

SC Directs Uniform Policy for Demolition & Rehabilitation of Unauthorised Homes Under Article 21

The Supreme Court has ruled that the state's power to demolish unauthorised constructions must be balanced with the duty to rehabilitate affected families, invoking Article 21 (right to dignity, shelter, livelihood). The court directed the Union and State governments to consider formulating a uniform demolition and rehabilitation policy.

Polity Current Affairs

Patna HC Rules Religious Freedom Under Article 25 Subject to Public Order and Morality

Patna High Court holds that the right to profess and practise religion under Article 25 is not absolute and can be restricted for public order, morality, and health. This reiterates the essential religious practices doctrine and clarifies that constitutional protection does not extend to every mode of exercise. A plea for 300 devotees in a religious procession in Siwan, Bihar, was dismissed citing past law-and-order incidents.

Polity Current Affairs

Uttarakhand Seals 20 Madrasas Under New Minority Education Act; USAME Replaces Madrasa Board

Uttarakhand has sealed 20 unrecognised madrasas under a new regulatory framework that replaced its statutory Madrasa Board with the Uttarakhand State Authority for Minority Education (USAME). The move, backed by a 2024 Supreme Court ruling upholding state regulation of minority institutions while protecting Article 30 rights, signals a shift toward standardised education in minority-run schools. Aspirants must connect this to Article 21A, RTE Act, and the ongoing debate between minority autonomy and state regulation.

Polity Current Affairs

Health Ministry Backs Same-Sex Partners' Medical Decision Rights Under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

The Union Health Ministry has told the Delhi High Court that excluding same-sex partners from making medical decisions for each other solely based on sexual orientation is unethical. This marks a significant administrative shift, though the government maintains that 'spouse' under Indian marriage laws only applies to heterosexual couples, creating a nuanced legal landscape for exam aspirants.

Polity Current Affairs

SC 9-Judge Bench Rules BWSSB Triple Test Not Binding for IRC 2020 Section 2(p)

The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench has held that the landmark 1978 'Triple Test' for defining 'industry' under the ID Act will not be a binding precedent for interpreting the identical provision in the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020. This could weaken worker protections just as more workers move to the private sector post-liberalisation.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Upholds EC's SIR, Citizenship Under MHA; 13 Crore Deletions, Aadhaar Alternative Proposed

The Supreme Court upheld the EC's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which deleted over 13 crore names, but clarified that citizenship determination is solely under the Ministry of Home Affairs. This raises critical debates on voter rights, due process, and the viability of Aadhaar-based verification as a cost-effective, inclusive alternative to house-to-house surveys.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Seeks Centre Reply on PIL: Minors' Online Accounts Without Valid Contracts Under Section 11 Indian Contract Act

A PIL filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance has challenged the practice of allowing minors to independently sign up for digital platforms without verified parental consent. The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre, highlighting the legal gap between Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act (barring minors from contracts) and existing IT/DPDP rules.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Proposes Exempting Current Class 6 from Three-Language Policy; Centre Seeks More Time

The Supreme Court has proposed exempting the current Class 6 batch from the mandatory three-language policy, suggesting implementation from January 1, 2027. The Centre has sought more time to decide, while the court has asked for details on teacher availability and infrastructure.

Balancing faith, dignity and…, Current Affairs for Exams