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

They may ask about the specific sub-clauses of Article 25 (like 25(2)(a) vs 25(2)(b)) or confuse the rights under Article 25 (individual) with those under Article 26 (denominational). They might also ask which judge made which observation (e.g., Justice Nagarathna on 'annihilation of religion').

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: 9-judge bench presided by CJI Surya Kant 2. Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) 3. Target this Legal Point: Interplay between Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 0 of 27

9-Judge SC Bench Examines Article 25 & 26 in Sabarimala Reference, Says Religion a 'Matter of Conscience'

Q: The constitutional questions being examined by the 9-judge Supreme Court bench primarily involve the interplay between which two articles?

Article 25 and Article 26, As stated in the article, one of the key questions the court is examining is the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Article 25 deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, while Article 26 deals with the freedom to manage religious affairs.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the observations made by the Supreme Court bench in the Sabarimala reference case: 1. The Court stated that matters of religion cannot be a subject of debate before a secular authority as they are a matter of conscience. 2. The Court asserted that it should actively use the essential religious practices test to reform all religious customs. 3. The Court observed that Article 26(b) recognises and protects the diversity of religious denominations in the nation. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct as the article quotes the bench saying religion "cannot be a subject matter of debate before a secular authority because it is a matter of conscience." Statement 2 is incorrect; the bench expressed caution about the test, with Justice Sundaresh saying courts must be 'circumspect'. Statement 3 is correct as the article begins by stating the Court said "Article 26(b) recognises and protects the diversity of the nation."

Q: How many judges constitute the Supreme Court bench hearing the constitutional questions in the Sabarimala reference case?

9 Judges, The article clearly states that a nine-judge Supreme Court bench, presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, is hearing the case. The names of all nine justices are listed in the third paragraph.

Q: What was a primary concern expressed by the Supreme Court bench regarding the potential consequences of a broad interpretation of individual rights under Article 25(1) in religious matters?

It could result in the 'annihilation of religion' itself., Justice Nagarathna explicitly stated, "It would be annihilation of religion which we don’t want to be a part of." Justice Sundaresh also warned that agreeing with certain contentions would be "disastrous to the concept of religion itself, and it will be militating against the very right given under Article 25(1)."

Polity Social IssuesCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

29 Apr 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:9-judge benchArticle 25Article 26September 28, 2018

Bodies:Supreme Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench, headed by CJI Surya Kant, is hearing constitutional questions on the Sabarimala review, focusing on Articles 25 and 26.

2.The bench expressed that courts must be circumspect in applying the essential religious practices test to avoid the 'annihilation of religion'.

3.The discussion touched upon the state's power for social reform under Article 25(2) and the gradual, state-wise approach towards a Uniform Civil Code.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

A 9-judge Constitution Bench is examining the interplay between Article 25 (freedom of conscience) and Article 26 (rights of religious denominations) in the Sabarimala review. The Court underscored that matters of religion are not a subject for debate before secular authorities as they are a 'matter of conscience', highlighting the judiciary's circumspection in applying the essential religious practices test.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Bench Strength9 Judges

Presiding JudgeCJI Surya Kant

Key ArticlesArticle 25 & Article 26

Original Judgment DateSeptember 28, 2018

1-Minute Revision

›Bench Strength: 9 Judges
›Presiding Judge: CJI Surya Kant
›Target this Data: 9-judge bench presided by CJI Surya Kant
›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
›Target this Legal Point: Interplay between Article 25 and 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

⚖️

Judicial Restraint

The SC stated matters of religion cannot be judged by courts or legislatures as they are a 'matter of conscience'.

📜

Constitutional Core

The case hinges on the interplay between Article 25 (individual freedom) and Article 26(b) (denominational autonomy).

🔄

Test in Question

The bench is deliberating on the scope and application of the 'essential religious practices' test in judicial review.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The hearing stems from petitions seeking review of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which struck down restrictions on women's entry. A larger 9-judge bench was constituted to settle broader questions on the scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26, which have implications for multiple similar cases.

Core Analysis & Implications

The Court's emphasis on religion being a 'matter of conscience' signals a potential shift towards greater judicial deference. The caution against the 'annihilation of religion' and the need for courts to be 'circumspect' when dealing with essentiality suggests a reevaluation of how deeply judges can intervene in religious doctrine. This directly impacts the 'essential religious practices' test, a key tool for judicial review of religious customs.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The final ruling will define the boundaries between individual religious freedom (Article 25) and the collective rights of religious denominations (Article 26). It will set a precedent for other pending issues involving religious customs, such as the practices of Parsi women and Muslim women's entry into mosques. The Court's observations on a state-wise approach to a Uniform Civil Code also indicate the judiciary's view on incremental social reform.

Key Facts at a Glance

Bench Strength9 Judges

Presiding JudgeCJI Surya Kant

Key ArticlesArticle 25 & Article 26

Original Judgment DateSeptember 28, 2018

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

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

The constitutional questions being examined by the 9-judge Supreme Court bench primarily involve the interplay between which two articles?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC

Consider the following statements regarding the observations made by the Supreme Court bench in the Sabarimala reference case:

1. The Court stated that matters of religion cannot be a subject of debate before a secular authority as they are a matter of conscience.

2. The Court asserted that it should actively use the essential religious practices test to reform all religious customs.

3. The Court observed that Article 26(b) recognises and protects the diversity of religious denominations in the nation.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

How many judges constitute the Supreme Court bench hearing the constitutional questions in the Sabarimala reference case?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC

What was a primary concern expressed by the Supreme Court bench regarding the potential consequences of a broad interpretation of individual rights under Article 25(1) in religious matters?

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 Supreme Court Mandates Binding Timelines for Legal Aid from First Magistrate Production Under Article 21 & 39A

Related Current Affairs

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

Govt to SC: Only Parliament Can Extend Creamy Layer to SC/ST; Cites Article 341, E V Chinnaiah Case

The government has told the Supreme Court that extending the creamy layer principle to SC/ST is a policy decision for Parliament alone. This reaffirms that reservation for SC/ST is based on historical social criteria, not just economic status, and the creamy layer concept currently applies only to OBCs.

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

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Delhi-NCR Sexual Assaults, Cites Article 21 and Nirbhaya Parallel

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of recent sexual assault cases in Delhi-NCR, flagging lax patrolling and administrative failures that make public spaces 'zones of high risk'. The court invoked Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and drew a painful parallel to the 2012 Nirbhaya case, demanding accountability and a measurable response from authorities. This has major implications for law enforcement accountability, women's safety, and judicial oversight.

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

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

SC Quashes NEET Protest FIRs Under Article 142, Orders Compensation Policy for Suicide Victims

Supreme Court used Article 142 to quash all FIRs registered against NEET protesters across India, while ordering compensation policy for families of students who died by suicide. This judgment underscores the balance between protest rights and criminal liability, and the government's commitment to address exam leak issues.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

9-Judge SC Bench Examines Article 25 & 26 in Sabarimala Reference, Says Religion a 'Matter of Conscience'

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Judicial Restraint

Constitutional Core

Test in Question

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance