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

Examiners may trap you by asking about the specific article under which the State can regulate religion, often confusing it with Article 25(1) (freedom of conscience) or Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs). They may also ask about the year of the original Sabarimala judgment (2018) versus the year of the PIL filing (2006).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: 9-Judge Bench hearing Sabarimala review petitions. 2. Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India (Constitutional Bench). 3. Target this Legal Point: Article 25(2)(b) - State's power to regulate secular activities connected to religion.

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 0 of 29

9-Judge SC Bench Affirms Judicial Review of Religious Practices Under Article 25(2)(b) in Sabarimala Review Hearing

Q: Under which Article of the Constitution does the State have the power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice, as discussed in the Supreme Court hearing?

Article 25(2)(b), The article explicitly mentions Article 25(2)(b) as the constitutional provision under discussion. This clause empowers the State to make laws providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all sections of Hindus.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court hearing discussed in the news: 1. The Centre argued that secular courts lack the 'scholarly competence' to decide if a religious practice is superstitious. 2. The 9-judge bench was constituted to hear a review petition against a 2020 Supreme Court judgment. 3. The original writ petition in the Sabarimala case was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association in 2006. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct as the Solicitor General stated that a secular court lacks scholarly competence in religious matters. Statement 2 is incorrect; the bench is reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, not a 2020 judgment. Statement 3 is correct as the article mentions the PIL was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association in 2006.

Q: According to the news, in which year was the original Supreme Court judgment delivered that struck down age restrictions on women's entry into the Sabarimala temple?

2018, The article clearly states that the 9-judge bench is examining questions arising from petitions seeking review of the 'September 28, 2018, judgment' on Sabarimala. The year 2006 is when the PIL was filed, making it a close distractor.

Q: What was a primary concern raised by the Centre regarding the Supreme Court's power to decide on superstitious religious practices?

Secular courts lack the scholarly competence to make such determinations., As per the article, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that 'a secular court can’t decide a religious practice as mere superstition because you don’t have scholarly competence.' The other options, while plausible in a broader debate, are not mentioned in the provided text.

PolityCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

08 Apr 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:September 28, 201820069-judge bench

Bodies:Supreme Court of India

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.The Supreme Court, through a 9-judge bench, affirmed its power to decide if a religious practice is superstitious, invoking its residual jurisdiction under Article 25(2)(b).

2.The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued secular courts lack 'scholarly competence' for such determinations, which should be left to the legislature for reform.

3.The bench is examining seven constitutional questions, including the locus standi of the original petitioners (Indian Young Lawyers Association) who filed the PIL in 2006, which is central to the Sabarimala review.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

A 9-judge Supreme Court bench, hearing Sabarimala review petitions, asserted its jurisdiction to decide if a religious practice is 'superstitious', a stance contested by the Centre. The core debate centres on the judiciary's power of judicial review versus the legislature's authority to reform religion under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. This hearing addresses seven crucial constitutional questions that will impact the review of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Bench Strength9-Judge Bench

Key Constitutional ArticleArticle 25(2)(b)

Original Petition Year2006

Sabarimala Judgment DateSeptember 28, 2018

1-Minute Revision

›Bench Strength: 9-Judge Bench
›Key Constitutional Article: Article 25(2)(b)
›Target this Data: 9-Judge Bench hearing Sabarimala review petitions.
›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India (Constitutional Bench).
›Target this Legal Point: Article 25(2)(b) - State's power to regulate secular activities connected to religion.

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 Review vs. Legislature

The Supreme Court asserted its jurisdiction to review religious practices as 'superstitious', while the Centre argued this is a legislative function under Article 25(2)(b).

🔍

Locus Standi Questioned

Justice Nagarathna questioned the locus standi of the petitioners in the Sabarimala case, noting they were not devotees but the Indian Young Lawyers Association filing a PIL.

🧩

Constitutional Questions

The 9-judge bench is examining seven constitutional questions arising from petitions seeking a review of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which will directly impact the review.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

This hearing before a 9-judge constitutional bench stems from petitions seeking a review of the Supreme Court's September 28, 2018 judgment, which struck down age restrictions on women's entry into the Sabarimala temple. The court is now examining seven broader constitutional questions, including the interplay between judicial review and legislative authority over religious practices.

Core Analysis & Implications

The core legal tussle is between the judiciary's power of judicial review and the legislature's authority under Article 25(2)(b) to regulate secular activities associated with religion. The Centre's argument that secular courts lack 'scholarly competence' to judge religious practices challenges the very basis of judicial intervention in matters of faith. The questioning of the PIL petitioner's locus standi (Indian Young Lawyers Association) could set a precedent for future public interest litigation on religious customs.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The bench's final ruling on these seven questions will not only determine the fate of the Sabarimala review but also establish a landmark precedent on the scope of judicial review over religious practices, the limits of PIL in matters of faith, and the balance of power between the judiciary and legislature under Article 25. The hearing is set to continue, with the CJI noting that the questions addressed will have a direct impact on the review.

Key Facts at a Glance

Bench Strength9-Judge Bench

Key Constitutional ArticleArticle 25(2)(b)

Original Petition Year2006

Sabarimala Judgment DateSeptember 28, 2018

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

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, MPSC, SSC, State PSC

Under which Article of the Constitution does the State have the power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice, as discussed in the Supreme Court hearing?

Q2Statement-basedMediumUPSC, MPSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court hearing discussed in the news:

1. The Centre argued that secular courts lack the 'scholarly competence' to decide if a religious practice is superstitious.

2. The 9-judge bench was constituted to hear a review petition against a 2020 Supreme Court judgment.

3. The original writ petition in the Sabarimala case was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association in 2006.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

According to the news, in which year was the original Supreme Court judgment delivered that struck down age restrictions on women's entry into the Sabarimala temple?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, MPSC

What was a primary concern raised by the Centre regarding the Supreme Court's power to decide on superstitious religious practices?

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 →

Next Women's Reservation Act 2023 Implementation Linked to 2011 Census and Proposed Lok Sabha Expansion to 816 Seats

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

CEC Removal Procedure Matches SC Judge; 2023 Act Appointment Panel Challenged Under Anoop Baranwal

Opposition demands CEC removal after leaked objections. CEC removal requires special majority in both Houses (same as SC judge), making it politically difficult. Meanwhile, the 2023 Act for appointing CEC/ECs, which replaced CJI with a Cabinet Minister, faces a split verdict in the Supreme Court. This touches Article 324, the Anoop Baranwal judgment, and independence of the Election Commission.

Polity Current Affairs

Nine-Judge SC Bench Set to Define 'Industry' under ID Act; NMC Proposes Single Nationwide Doctor Licence

Today's digest packs multiple high-yield facts: NMC proposes a UID-based single licence for doctors valid across India, a nine-judge Supreme Court Bench is set to pronounce its verdict on the meaning of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and Bangladesh holds its first presidential election in 35 years. For aspirants, the NMC draft regulation and the SC verdict are direct Prelims and Mains material for healthcare policy, labour law, and constitutional interpretation.

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

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 Strengthens Article 22 Safeguards: Violation Invalidates Arrest, Re-Arrest Requires Judicial Approval

The Supreme Court has declared any violation of Article 22(1) or 22(2) as rendering an arrest unconstitutional. This landmark ruling mandates that re-arrest of such an accused requires prior judicial approval, reinforcing fundamental rights against arbitrary detention. For UPSC aspirants, this is a critical update on constitutional safeguards and judicial interpretation of Article 22.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Upholds Telangana MLA Danam Nagender Disqualification Under Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule)

Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of Telangana MLA Danam Nagender for defecting from BRS to Congress. The court rejected the 'ghar wapsi' argument, reinforcing that voluntarily giving up party membership under the Tenth Schedule cannot be condoned by claiming regret. This judgment reaffirms judicial review over Speaker's decisions in anti-defection cases.

Polity Current Affairs

SC's 76-Year Journey: Reforms at Magistracy Level Needed for Judicial Overhaul

A former Delhi High Court judge critiques the Indian judiciary's performance over 76 years, highlighting issues like eviction of poor without rehabilitation, failure to curb extra-legal punishments, and delay in upholding progressive judgments. The article argues that meaningful judicial reform must begin at the magisterial level, focusing on mentoring, mental health support, and performance evaluation reforms.

Polity Current Affairs

ECI Allocates Symbols Under Symbols Order 1968: TMC Split Triggers Para 15 Dispute Resolution

The Election Commission's power to allocate symbols and resolve intra-party disputes is a core UPSC topic. This article covers the Symbols Order 1968, how symbols are reserved/free, and the recent TMC split case. It also connects to the appointment of ECs (Article 324, 2023 Act, SC split verdict), making it high-yield for both Prelims and Mains.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

9-Judge SC Bench Affirms Judicial Review of Religious Practices Under Article 25(2)(b) in Sabarimala Review Hearing

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Judicial Review vs. Legislature

Locus Standi Questioned

Constitutional Questions

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance