What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

They may ask about the size of the bench that delivered the 2018 judgment (5-judge) versus the bench hearing the review (9-judge) to confuse you. Another trap is swapping the arguments: the state and centre are now arguing FOR religious denomination rights, not AGAINST them as they did earlier.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: The original Sabarimala verdict was delivered on September 28, 2018, by a 5-judge bench. 2. Target this Nodal Body: The current review is being heard by a 9-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. 3. Target this Legal Point: The central legal dispute involves the interpretation of 'denomination' under Article 26 of the Constitution.

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 0 of 38

Kerala, Centre Support Review of SC's 2018 Sabarimala Verdict, 9-Judge Constitution Bench Hearing Today

Q: Under which Article of the Indian Constitution is the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed?

Article 26, Article 26 specifically grants rights to religious denominations, including the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. Article 25 deals with the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion for individuals.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the recent developments in the Sabarimala review case: 1. The Kerala government has maintained its original stance and continues to support the 2018 Supreme Court judgment allowing women's entry. 2. The Centre, in its submission, argued that the 2018 judgment failed to adequately consider the expression 'or a section thereof' in the context of religious denominations. 3. The review petition is being heard by a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Only 2, Statement 1 is incorrect as the Kerala government reversed its earlier stand and is now supporting the review petitioner. Statement 2 is correct as per the Centre's written submissions mentioned in the article. Statement 3 is incorrect because the article states the hearing is before a nine-Judge Constitution Bench, not a seven-judge bench.

Q: According to the article, on which date was the original Supreme Court judgment on Sabarimala delivered?

September 28, 2018, The article explicitly mentions the "September 28, 2018, decision of a five-Judge bench". April 06, 2026, is the publication date of the news article, and March 14, 2026, is the date when the Kerala government filed its written submissions.

Q: What is the primary constitutional value that the Centre's submission, as mentioned in the article, seeks to emphasize in the Sabarimala review case?

Religious pluralism and internal diversity, The Centre's argument, as detailed in the article, stresses that "constitutional adjudication must account for plurality within religion" and that preserving the "rich diversity of religious practices" is in the public interest. While gender justice was the basis of the 2018 verdict, the Centre's current emphasis is on pluralism.

Polity Social IssuesHIGH

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

06 Apr 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:September 28, 2018Article 26

Bodies:Supreme Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Kerala's Left Democratic Front government and the Centre filed written submissions backing review petitions against the 2018 Sabarimala verdict that allowed women of all ages entry.

2.The hearing is scheduled before a nine-Judge Constitution Bench, with arguments centering on whether Ayyappa devotees constitute a 'denomination' under Article 26 of the Constitution.

3.The legal challenge hinges on the interpretation of religious plurality within Hinduism and the balance between gender equality (Article 14) and religious freedom (Articles 25-26).

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Kerala government and the Centre have reversed their previous positions to support a review of the Supreme Court's landmark 2018 Sabarimala judgment. A nine-judge Constitution Bench will hear arguments today, focusing on the definition of 'denomination' and the constitutional protection of diverse religious practices within Hinduism. This is a critical case on religious freedom and gender equality for Polity syllabus.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Original Judgment DateSeptember 28, 2018

Bench Hearing ReviewNine-Judge Constitution Bench

Key Legal Term in Dispute'Denomination' under Article 26

Nature of DeityNaishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate)

1-Minute Revision

›Original Judgment Date: September 28, 2018
›Bench Hearing Review: Nine-Judge Constitution Bench
›Target this Data: The original Sabarimala verdict was delivered on September 28, 2018, by a 5-judge bench.
›Target this Nodal Body: The current review is being heard by a 9-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
›Target this Legal Point: The central legal dispute involves the interpretation of 'denomination' under Article 26 of the Constitution.

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

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

News Snapshot

🔄

State's U-Turn

Kerala's LDF government reversed its 2018 stand and now supports the review petition against the judgment allowing women's entry into Sabarimala.

⚖️

Constitutional Question

The core legal issue is whether Ayyappa devotees form a distinct 'denomination' entitled to manage their own religious affairs under Article 26.

🕉️

Plurality Argument

The Centre argues the judgment erred by not recognizing Hinduism's internal diversity and the unique nature of the Sabarimala deity, Lord Ayyappa.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

In September 2018, a 4:1 majority of a five-judge Supreme Court bench in *Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala* struck down the age-old restriction on women (10-50 years) entering Sabarimala temple, terming it discriminatory under Article 14 and not an 'essential religious practice'. The judgment triggered widespread protests and multiple review petitions were filed. This case sits at the intersection of Articles 14 (Equality), 25 (Freedom of religion), and 26 (Right of religious denominations).

Core Analysis & Implications

The reversal by both Kerala and the Centre signals a significant political and legal shift. Their argument centers on two pillars: First, that the 2018 judgment incorrectly applied the 'denomination' test, failing to consider Ayyappa devotees as a 'section thereof' within Hinduism. Second, it emphasizes 'religious pluralism' as a constitutional value, arguing that homogenizing worship practices undermines diversity. If the review succeeds, it could set a precedent for granting greater autonomy to sub-sects within major religions, potentially impacting similar cases involving religious customs and gender access.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The nine-judge bench's ruling will have far-reaching consequences beyond Sabarimala, as it is also tasked with answering reference questions on the interplay between religious rights and other fundamental rights from other cases (like entry of Muslim women into mosques and Parsi women into fire temples). The decision will redefine the constitutional balance between gender justice and the protection of distinct religious identities, shaping India's secular jurisprudence for decades.

Key Facts at a Glance

Original Judgment DateSeptember 28, 2018

Bench Hearing ReviewNine-Judge Constitution Bench

Key Legal Term in Dispute'Denomination' under Article 26

Nature of DeityNaishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate)

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Under which Article of the Indian Constitution is the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC

Consider the following statements regarding the recent developments in the Sabarimala review case:

1. The Kerala government has maintained its original stance and continues to support the 2018 Supreme Court judgment allowing women's entry.

2. The Centre, in its submission, argued that the 2018 judgment failed to adequately consider the expression 'or a section thereof' in the context of religious denominations.

3. The review petition is being heard by a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

According to the article, on which date was the original Supreme Court judgment on Sabarimala delivered?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, State PSC

What is the primary constitutional value that the Centre's submission, as mentioned in the article, seeks to emphasize in the Sabarimala review case?

All 15 MCQs ▸

Read original article from Indian Express

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →Social IssuesView Topic MCQs →

Next First Additional District Court Sentences 9 Police Personnel to Death in 2020 Sattankulam Custodial Torture Case

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

SC Special Bench to Decide OBC Creamy Layer Verdict's Applicability to CSE 2025

The Supreme Court will hear the Centre's plea seeking clarity on whether its March 2026 OBC creamy layer verdict applies to CSE 2025, which was largely concluded before the judgment. This tests the 'rules of the game' doctrine in service law and affects hundreds of OBC candidates' reservation status.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Nine-Judge Bench Revisits 'Industry' Definition: Bangalore Water Supply Case (1978) Under Scrutiny

The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench is set to rule on the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, potentially expanding or contracting labour protections for workers in hospitals, educational institutions, and government welfare schemes. This landmark decision could impact millions of employees and reshape industrial relations law.

Polity Current Affairs

SC’s Nine-Judge Bench Split: ‘Industry’ Definition Retains 1978 Triple Test for Pending Cases

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a fractured verdict on what constitutes an 'industry' under labour law. The judges agreed that pending cases under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will continue to be decided under the 1978 'triple test' from Bangalore Water Supply case. The new Industrial Relations Code, 2020 must be interpreted independently, and the ruling does not extend the old jurisprudence forward.

Polity Current Affairs

Rajya Sabha Passes Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2026, Raising Judge Strength to 38

The Rajya Sabha has cleared the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the apex court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The Bill replaces a May ordinance, but Opposition MPs questioned the ordinance route and highlighted the persistent diversity deficit in judicial appointments. This is a high-yield Polity topic for Prelims and Mains, with concrete data on SC/ST/OBC/minority/women representation and judiciary infrastructure.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Directs Centre on NTA Reform: Radhakrishnan & Nilekani Committee Recommendations

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to file an affidavit on implementing recommendations of the K Radhakrishnan and Nandan Nilekani committees to reform the NTA, aiming to make it a vibrant, foolproof institution like the UPSC. The court stressed institutionalisation with proper infrastructure, manpower, and technology to prevent exam leaks and ensure integrity.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Stays UGC Equity Regulations 2026 as 'Vague', Centre Reconsiders Framework

The Centre informed the Supreme Court that the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 — aimed at preventing caste-based discrimination on campuses — is under reconsideration. The SC had earlier stayed the regulations, calling them 'prima facie vague' and potentially divisive. The 2012 regulations remain in force.

Polity Current Affairs

SC's March 11 Creamy Layer Judgment: Centre Seeks Clarification for 100 OBC CSE-2025 Candidates

Centre has approached SC seeking clarification on its March 11 judgment that ruled income cannot be the sole criterion for creamy layer among OBCs. The plea concerns 100 candidates selected in CSE since 2016 but rejected due to creamy layer criteria. The government warns retrospective application could disrupt CSE-2025 training and allocation.

Polity Current Affairs

Centre Seeks SC Exemption for CSE 2025, 2026 from OBC Creamy Layer Income Test Retroactivity

The Centre has urged the Supreme Court to keep CSE 2025 and 2026 out of the Rohith Nathan judgment's retrospective operation, allowing the older OBC creamy layer income test to continue. It warns that retrospective application would hit 3.7 lakh OBC recruitments since 2016 and trigger widespread litigation across Railways, Banks, Posts and paramilitary.

Start Today's Quiz(15 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

15 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Kerala, Centre Support Review of SC's 2018 Sabarimala Verdict, 9-Judge Constitution Bench Hearing Today

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

State's U-Turn

Constitutional Question

Plurality Argument

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance