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

Examiners may ask about the original Sabarimala judgment's year (2018) versus the year of the current reference hearing (2026). They may also confuse the bench strength (5-judge in 2018 vs 9-judge now) or swap the articles (Article 25 vs Article 26). A common trap is to ask if the 2018 judgment was unanimous (it was a 4:1 majority).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: September 28, 2018 (Date of original Sabarimala judgment) 2. Target this Nodal Body: Nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court 3. Target this Legal Point: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 4 of 22

SC 9-Judge Bench Examines Religious Denomination Rights, Entry of Women in Sabarimala Reference Hearing

Q: As per the news, which constitutional articles are primarily under consideration in the Sabarimala reference case regarding religious freedom?

Articles 25 and 26, The article discusses the Supreme Court examining the scope of religious freedom under the Constitution, which is enshrined in Articles 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Sabarimala case as mentioned in the article: 1. The original 2018 Supreme Court judgment was delivered by a five-judge bench. 2. The current reference case is being heard by a seven-judge Constitution Bench. 3. The 2018 judgment struck down a specific rule from the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct: The article states the 2018 judgment was by a five-judge bench. Statement 2 is incorrect: The article clearly states the current hearing is by a nine-judge bench, not seven. Statement 3 is correct: The article mentions the 2018 judgment struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965.

Q: According to the article, on which date did the five-judge Supreme Court bench deliver its original judgment in the Sabarimala case?

September 28, 2018, The article explicitly states: "On September 28, 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, lifted the age restriction on women visitors..." April 23, 2026, is the publication date of the news article.

Q: What is the primary constitutional issue being examined by the nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case, as per the article?

The scope of religious freedom and rights of denominations under the Constitution., The article's background states the apex court is hearing pleas concerning discrimination against women and "the scope of religious freedom under the Constitution." The detailed observations about denominations and protected worship further confirm this is the core issue. Other options are not mentioned in the article.

Polity Social IssuesHIGH

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

23 Apr 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:September 28, 2018Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965

Bodies:Supreme Court of India

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench made key observations on Day 8 of the Sabarimala reference case, focusing on the definition and protection of religious denominations under the Constitution.

2.Justice BV Nagarathna emphasized protecting non-Hindu religious denominations and criticized reliance on unverified sources ('WhatsApp University').

3.The hearing grapples with the 2018 Sabarimala judgment and its implications for other cases concerning women's entry into mosques and other religious places.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

A 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is examining the scope of religious freedom and the rights of religious denominations. The hearing includes crucial observations on protecting diverse forms of worship, the distinction between Hindu and non-Hindu denominations, and the broader question of women's entry into religious places. This is a landmark case with significant implications for Constitutional interpretation.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Bench StrengthNine-Judge Bench

Key JusticeJustice B V Nagarathna

Original Judgment DateSeptember 28, 2018

Original Bench StrengthFive-Judge Bench (4:1 majority)

1-Minute Revision

›Bench Strength: Nine-Judge Bench
›Key Justice: Justice B V Nagarathna
›Target this Data: September 28, 2018 (Date of original Sabarimala judgment)
›Target this Nodal Body: Nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
›Target this Legal Point: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965

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 Reference

A 9-judge SC bench is hearing a reference case to decide on the interplay between religious freedom (Articles 25-26) and gender equality (Article 14).

🔍

Denomination Debate

The Court is examining whether distinct forms of worship (Shaivite, Vaishnavite) constitute protected religious denominations, and if this protection extends to non-Hindu groups.

📜

2018 Judgment Context

The hearing stems from a 2018 SC judgment that struck down the ban on women of menstruating age entering Sabarimala temple, a decision now under review.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The Supreme Court is hearing a reference made to a larger bench to resolve questions arising from its 2018 Sabarimala judgment. That 5-judge bench, by a 4:1 majority, lifted the age restriction on women visitors, striking down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965. The current 9-judge bench, headed by CJI Surya Kant, is examining broader issues of religious freedom, denomination rights, and discrimination against women across religions.

Core Analysis & Implications

The hearing delves into the constitutional definition of a 'religious denomination' under Article 26. Key arguments include whether distinct sects within Hinduism (like Shaivites or Vaishnavites) qualify, and crucially, whether non-Hindu groups can claim similar protections. Justice Nagarathna's remark on protecting non-Hindu denominations indicates an expansive interpretation. The 'WhatsApp University' comment underscores the Court's insistence on verified legal sources over popular narratives. The outcome will set a precedent for similar cases involving the entry of women into mosques and other religious sites.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The 9-judge bench's ruling will provide a definitive interpretation of Articles 25 and 26, impacting not just Sabarimala but other pending cases on religious practices. It will clarify the test for what constitutes an 'essential religious practice' and the extent to which denominational rights can restrict other fundamental rights like equality. The judgment will also influence legislative action on uniform civil code and personal law reforms.

Key Facts at a Glance

Bench StrengthNine-Judge Bench

Key JusticeJustice B V Nagarathna

Original Judgment DateSeptember 28, 2018

Original Bench StrengthFive-Judge Bench (4:1 majority)

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

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

As per the news, which constitutional articles are primarily under consideration in the Sabarimala reference case regarding religious freedom?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, State PSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Sabarimala case as mentioned in the article:

1. The original 2018 Supreme Court judgment was delivered by a five-judge bench.

2. The current reference case is being heard by a seven-judge Constitution Bench.

3. The 2018 judgment struck down a specific rule from the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC

According to the article, on which date did the five-judge Supreme Court bench deliver its original judgment in the Sabarimala case?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC

What is the primary constitutional issue being examined by the nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case, as per the 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 →Social IssuesView Topic MCQs →

PreviousHeatwave Thresholds, 380M Exposed Workers & ICAP: India's Climate Action for 75% Workforce Next Allahabad HC Rules Maternity Benefit Act 1961 Prevails Over Financial Handbook, Allows Second Maternity Leave Within 2 Years

Related Current Affairs

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

Election Commission's SIR Deletes 13 Crore Names from Draft Rolls; Raises Questions on Population & Voting Rights

The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has led to the deletion of 13 crore names from draft rolls, including nearly one-third of Delhi's electorate. This article by a former Chief Election Commissioner uses satire to highlight the absurdity of treating electoral roll deletions as a solution to India's population problem, while drawing parallels with the Assam NRC and warning of potential disenfranchisement of eligible citizens.

Polity Current Affairs

Health Ministry Backs Same-Sex Partners' Medical Decision Rights Under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

The Union Health Ministry has told the Delhi High Court that excluding same-sex partners from making medical decisions for each other solely based on sexual orientation is unethical. This marks a significant administrative shift, though the government maintains that 'spouse' under Indian marriage laws only applies to heterosexual couples, creating a nuanced legal landscape for exam aspirants.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Expands to 38 Judges: Diversity Deficit Exposed as Women Only 4.15%

Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, adding 4 judges to the apex court (strength now 38). However, the article underscores a glaring lack of diversity: women constitute only 4.15% of all SC judges ever appointed, and caste representation in High Courts remains abysmally low. For exam aspirants, this links directly to the collegium system, judicial appointments, social justice, and pendency crisis.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Landmark Judgments: From Basic Structure to Privacy - 80 Years of Rights & Freedoms

A compilation of landmark Supreme Court judgments from 1973 to 2019 that shaped fundamental rights, gender equality, privacy, and democracy in India. Essential for understanding constitutional evolution and judicial activism.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Proposes Exempting Current Class 6 from Three-Language Policy; Centre Seeks More Time

The Supreme Court has proposed exempting the current Class 6 batch from the mandatory three-language policy, suggesting implementation from January 1, 2027. The Centre has sought more time to decide, while the court has asked for details on teacher availability and infrastructure.

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

SC Seeks Replies on NRC ID Cards: 3.11 Crore Await Documents, 19 Lakh Excluded

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre and Assam government to respond to pleas seeking issuance of identity cards to 3.11 crore people included in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) 2019, while another 19 lakh excluded persons await the appeal process. This case is critical for exam aspirants as it tests knowledge of the Citizenship Act, NRC process, and Assam Accord provisions.

Start Today's Quiz(20 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

20 Qs • 5-7 Mins

SC 9-Judge Bench Examines Religious Denomination Rights, Entry of Women in Sabarimala Reference Hearing

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Constitutional Reference

Denomination Debate

2018 Judgment Context

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance