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

They will swap 'public morality' with 'constitutional morality' as the Centre's argued standard, or confuse Article 25 (individual freedom) with Article 26 (denominational rights). They may also ask which case is NOT related (e.g., mixing up Venkataramana Devaru with a criminal law case).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Legal Point: Article 26(b) gives religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. 2. Target this Nodal Body: The 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. 3. Target this Case Law: The 1954 Shirur Mutt case is a landmark on denominational rights.

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 0 of 29

Centre Argues Public Morality, Not Constitutional Morality, Must Govern Faith in 9-Judge Sabarimala Review

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

Article 26(b), Article 26(b) specifically grants every religious denomination or any section thereof the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Article 25 deals with individual freedom of religion.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the arguments presented in the Sabarimala review: 1. The Centre argued that 'public morality' should be the governing standard in matters of faith, not 'constitutional morality'. 2. The 'essential religious practices test' was defended by the Centre as being perfectly workable for India's diverse religions. 3. The landmark 1954 Shirur Mutt case was cited in arguments concerning the autonomy of religious denominations. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct as per the article. Statement 2 is incorrect; the Centre argued the test is 'unworkable'. Statement 3 is correct as the Shirur Mutt case was mentioned by Senior Advocate C S Vaidyanathan regarding denominational autonomy under Article 26(b).

Q: Before how many judges is the Constitution Bench hearing the review of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment?

9-judge bench, The article clearly states the Centre concluded its arguments before the '9-judge Constitution Bench' that is reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala ruling. This is a key factual detail from the news.

Q: What was a primary concern expressed by Justice Nagarathna regarding granting unrestrained rights to religious denominations under Article 26(b)?

It could negatively affect Hinduism by dividing society and excluding sections from temples., Justice Nagarathna expressed apprehension that if denominations could exclude others, as in the Venkataramana Devaru case, it would 'affect Hinduism negatively' and lead to societal division. This concern is directly mentioned in the article.

Polity Social IssuesCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

09 Apr 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:9-judge benchArticle 26(b)Year 1954 (Shirur Mutt)Year 1958 (Venkataramana Devaru)Year 2018 (Sabarimala ruling)

Bodies:Supreme Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.The Centre concluded arguments before a 9-judge Constitution Bench reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala ruling, advocating for 'public morality' over 'constitutional morality' as the standard for faith.

2.The government argued the 'essential religious practices test' is unworkable in India's diverse religious landscape and urged an 'Indic approach' to constitutional interpretation.

3.The hearing grapples with the conflict between a religious denomination's autonomy under Article 26(b) and the right to temple access, referencing landmark cases like Shirur Mutt (1954) and Venkataramana Devaru (1958).

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Centre has argued before a 9-judge Supreme Court bench that 'public morality', not 'constitutional morality', should be the governing standard in matters of faith, challenging the Court's 'essential religious practices' test. This hearing reviews the 2018 Sabarimala judgment and has profound implications for religious freedom (Article 25-26), temple entry rights, and the balance between faith and constitutional rights.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Constitution Bench9-judge bench

Key ArticleArticle 26(b)

Landmark Case CitedShirur Mutt (1954)

2018 Ruling ReviewSabarimala Temple Entry

1-Minute Revision

›Constitution Bench: 9-judge bench
›Key Article: Article 26(b)
›Target this Legal Point: Article 26(b) gives religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
›Target this Nodal Body: The 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
›Target this Case Law: The 1954 Shirur Mutt case is a landmark on denominational rights.

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

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

News Snapshot

⚖️

Core Legal Debate

Centre argues 'Public Morality' should supersede 'Constitutional Morality' as the governing standard for matters of faith before the Supreme Court.

🔍

Test Under Scrutiny

The 'essential religious practices test' used by courts is deemed unworkable for India's diverse religious landscape by the government.

📜

Historical Anchor

Arguments reference the 1954 Shirur Mutt judgment on denominational autonomy and the 1958 Venkataramana Devaru case on temple entry rights.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The hearing is a review by a 9-judge bench of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which held that barring women of menstruating age was unconstitutional. The Court is examining broader issues of religious freedom, the interplay between Articles 25 and 26, and the jurisprudential standards ('essential religious practices', 'constitutional morality') used in such cases. This stems from multiple review petitions and references concerning religious denominations and practices.

Core Analysis & Implications

The Centre's argument for 'public morality' challenges the judicial doctrine of 'constitutional morality' established in cases like the Navtej Singh Johar and Sabarimala itself. If accepted, it could shift the balance of power, giving greater weight to societal norms over individual constitutional rights in religious matters. The push for a 'swadeshi and Indic approach' seeks to ground interpretation in civilizational context rather than Western jurisprudence. The debate on whether Ayyappa devotees are a separate 'religious denomination' under Article 26 is central, as this status grants autonomy in managing religious affairs.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The Supreme Court's final ruling will set a crucial precedent for future cases involving religious customs versus individual rights (e.g., Muslim women's entry into mosques, Parsi women's entry into fire temples). It will redefine the limits of a religious denomination's autonomy under Article 26(b) and clarify the state's role in regulating religious practices for social reform. The judgment will also determine the continued validity of the 'essential religious practices' doctrine and the 'constitutional morality' standard in Indian jurisprudence.

Key Facts at a Glance

Constitution Bench9-judge bench

Key ArticleArticle 26(b)

Landmark Case CitedShirur Mutt (1954)

2018 Ruling ReviewSabarimala Temple Entry

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 Constitution does a religious denomination have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, MPSC

Consider the following statements regarding the arguments presented in the Sabarimala review:

1. The Centre argued that 'public morality' should be the governing standard in matters of faith, not 'constitutional morality'.

2. The 'essential religious practices test' was defended by the Centre as being perfectly workable for India's diverse religions.

3. The landmark 1954 Shirur Mutt case was cited in arguments concerning the autonomy of religious denominations.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Before how many judges is the Constitution Bench hearing the review of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, MPSC

What was a primary concern expressed by Justice Nagarathna regarding granting unrestrained rights to religious denominations under Article 26(b)?

All 25 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 Cabinet Approves Constitutional Amendment Bill for 33% Women's Quota Using 2011 Census Data, Lok Sabha Seats to Increase to 816

Related Current Affairs

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

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.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Judge Flags Frivolous Criminal Cases, 4.27 Cr Pending, Calls for Amnesty

Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has sharply criticized the filing of frivolous criminal cases, including those over food choices, poems, and social media posts. He proposed a one-time amnesty for non-serious cases to reduce the massive 4.27 crore pending criminal caseload, highlighting systemic issues in criminal justice and policing.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Issues Notice to Centre on Plea to Ban Polygamy Under Section 82 BNS Uniformly

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of polygamy among Muslims, arguing it violates gender equality and is a primary driver of female destitution. The plea seeks uniform application of Section 82 BNS (bigamy law) and compulsory registration of Muslim marriages. This case could reignite the Uniform Civil Code debate and has implications for personal law reforms.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Centre Argues Public Morality, Not Constitutional Morality, Must Govern Faith in 9-Judge Sabarimala Review

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Core Legal Debate

Test Under Scrutiny

Historical Anchor

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance