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

They will swap the scope of Article 25(2) with Article 26(b). Article 25(2) allows state regulation of secular activities and social welfare, while Article 26(b) protects internal religious management. A trap question might ask which article protects excommunication power, or which allows state intervention.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: 9-judge bench hearing Sabarimala reference 2. Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India 3. Target this Legal Point: Article 26(b) - Right of denominations to manage religious affairs

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 0 of 26

Supreme Court's 9-Judge Bench Debates Limits of Judicial Review on Religious Practices Under Articles 25 & 26

Q: Which constitutional article grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion?

Article 26, Article 26 of the Indian Constitution deals with the freedom to manage religious affairs. Specifically, clause (b) states that every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. This is the core article being debated in the Supreme Court hearing.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court hearing mentioned in the news: 1. The hearing is being conducted by a 9-judge bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India. 2. The case originates solely from a review of the 2018 Sabarimala temple verdict. 3. The bench is also examining questions related to practices in the Parsi and Dawoodi Bohra communities. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct as the article mentions a nine-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the hearing arises from Sabarimala review petitions, the article states the bench is hearing broader constitutional questions, not solely the Sabarimala review. Statement 3 is correct as the article explicitly mentions that questions of practices among Parsis and Dawoodi Bohras are tied to the case.

Q: According to the article, on which date did the Supreme Court deliver its original judgment striking down age restrictions on entry of women to the Sabarimala temple?

September 28, 2018, The article clearly states that the bench is hearing questions arising from petitions seeking review of the SC's September 28, 2018 judgment on the Sabarimala temple. The other dates are distractors; May 07, 2026 is the publication date of this news article.

Q: What is the primary constitutional dilemma being expressed by the Supreme Court justices in the news article?

Defining the limits of judicial review over religious practices protected under Articles 25 & 26., The core dilemma, as expressed by Justices Nagarathna and Sundresh, is whether and how much the court should intervene in religious matters. They are questioning if adjudicating every religious dispute harms India's civilisational identity and are examining the interplay between Article 26(b) (denominational rights) and state power under Article 25(2). The other options are not the central theme of the article.

PolityHIGH

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

07 May 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:September 28, 2018

Bodies:Supreme Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.A 9-judge Supreme Court bench is hearing constitutional questions arising from the 2018 Sabarimala review petitions.

2.Justices expressed concern over courts adjudicating every religious dispute, questioning if it harms India's unique civilisational character.

3.The debate centers on interpreting Article 26(b) (right of denominations to manage religious affairs) versus state power under Article 25(2).

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

A landmark 9-judge Supreme Court bench is grappling with the fundamental question of how far the judiciary should intervene in religious matters. The core dilemma is balancing the right to religious freedom under Articles 25 & 26 with the need for social reform, raising profound questions about India's civilizational identity and the separation of powers.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Bench Strength9-Judge Bench

Presiding JudgeCJI Surya Kant

Key ArticleArticle 26(b)

Original Judgment DateSeptember 28, 2018

1-Minute Revision

›Bench Strength: 9-Judge Bench
›Presiding Judge: CJI Surya Kant
›Target this Data: 9-judge bench hearing Sabarimala reference
›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India
›Target this Legal Point: Article 26(b) - Right of denominations to manage religious affairs

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

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

News Snapshot

⚖️

Constitutional Dilemma

The Supreme Court is weighing the right of religious denominations under Article 26(b) against the state's power to regulate secular affairs and protect fundamental rights.

🕊️

Civilisational Identity

Justice B V Nagarathna highlighted that India's civilisational identity is intrinsically linked to its intimate relationship with religion.

🔍

Sabarimala & Beyond

The hearing stems from petitions seeking review of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict and also examines practices in communities like Parsis and Dawoodi Bohras.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The hearing originates from the 2018 Sabarimala judgment which struck down age restrictions on women's entry. A larger 9-judge bench was constituted to answer broader constitutional questions on the interplay between religious freedom (Articles 25 & 26) and judicial review, setting a precedent for similar cases involving other communities like Dawoodi Bohras and Parsis.

Core Analysis & Implications

The justices are expressing judicial restraint, questioning if courts should be the primary forum for reforming religious practices. The core legal tension is between Article 26(b), which protects a denomination's right to manage its religious affairs, and the state's authority under Article 25(2) to make laws regulating secular activities or providing for social welfare. The court is concerned that excessive intervention could disrupt the 'constant' of religion in Indian society.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The judgment will establish a crucial doctrine on the limits of judicial review in religious matters. It will guide future cases on religious practices, potentially defining whether reform must come from within the community, through legislative action, or via judicial adjudication. The ruling will significantly impact the interpretation of secularism in the Indian Constitution.

Key Facts at a Glance

Bench Strength9-Judge Bench

Presiding JudgeCJI Surya Kant

Key ArticleArticle 26(b)

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

Which constitutional article grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, MPSC

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

1. The hearing is being conducted by a 9-judge bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India.

2. The case originates solely from a review of the 2018 Sabarimala temple verdict.

3. The bench is also examining questions related to practices in the Parsi and Dawoodi Bohra communities.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

According to the article, on which date did the Supreme Court deliver its original judgment striking down age restrictions on entry of women to the Sabarimala temple?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, MPSC

What is the primary constitutional dilemma being expressed by the Supreme Court justices in the news article?

All 20 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 SC Rules Medical Negligence Cases Survive Doctor's Death for Pecuniary Loss Claims Under Section 306, Indian Succession Act

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

Supreme Court Refers Challenge to 2023 EC Appointment Law to 5-Judge Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of Election Commissioners to a 5-judge Constitution Bench after a split verdict. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee, raising concerns about executive dominance and independence of the Election Commission. This case is crucial for exam aspirants as it involves constitutional principles of independence of constitutional bodies and separation of powers.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Questions Fairness of PM-Led Panel for CEC Appointment Under 2023 Act

The Supreme Court has questioned whether the selection of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners by a PM-led committee (with a Union Minister and LoP) demonstrates 'fairness'. The Centre defended the process citing constitutional trust, but the court hinted at the need for a more independent mechanism. This is crucial for understanding the debate on institutional independence and the Election Commission's autonomy.

Health & Education Current Affairs

NEET-UG Reform: Two-Stage JEE Pattern Under Active Consideration, Govt Tells Supreme Court

The Centre informed the Supreme Court that it is actively considering shifting NEET-UG to a two-stage format on the JEE (Mains & Advanced) pattern. The final decision will await recommendations from the Nandan Nilekani-led High-Powered Task Force on exam reforms. This is crucial for medical aspirants as it could change the entire exam structure and enhance security against paper leaks.

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 Dismisses 2017 PIL to Abolish Hanging Execution; Centre May Review Alternatives

The Supreme Court dismissed a 2017 PIL seeking to replace hanging with less painful methods like lethal injection, but allowed the Centre to form an expert body to review execution methods. The judgment references the Law Commission's 187th Report and emphasizes preserving dignity while minimizing pain.

Polity Current Affairs

Article 124(3) Provision for 'Distinguished Jurist' as Supreme Court Judge Remains Unused Since 1950

Article 124(3) of the Constitution allows appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' as a Supreme Court judge, but this provision has never been invoked in 76 years. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recently questioned this non-use, highlighting the lost opportunity for legal academics to contribute to the judiciary. This is a key constitutional issue for UPSC with potential for both prelims facts and mains analysis.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Rules NCSC Cannot Issue Binding Directions Under Article 338

The Supreme Court clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has only recommendatory and advisory powers under Article 338, not adjudicatory powers. It cannot issue binding orders in service disputes. This ruling sets boundaries for constitutional commissions under Articles 338, 338A, and 338B.

Start Today's Quiz(20 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

20 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Supreme Court's 9-Judge Bench Debates Limits of Judicial Review on Religious Practices Under Articles 25 & 26

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Constitutional Dilemma

Civilisational Identity

Sabarimala & Beyond

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance