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

They may ask which Article was 'applied' in the 2018 Sabarimala case (Article 17) versus which Article is being 'defended' now (Article 26). Another trap is swapping the bench size (5-judge in 2018 vs. 9-judge now) or the nature of the 2019 ruling (3:2 to refer to larger bench, not to uphold the 2018 verdict).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: The 2018 Sabarimala verdict was delivered on September 28 by a 5-judge bench with a 4:1 majority. 2. Target this Nodal Body: The Supreme Court of India (specifically, a 9-judge Constitution Bench). 3. Target this Legal Point: The interplay and conflict between Article 17 (Untouchability), Article 25 (Freedom of Religion), and Article 26(b) (Right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs).

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 0 of 36

Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Examines Article 17 Application to Sabarimala, Questions 2018 Ruling

Q: Which constitutional article, discussed in the news, guarantees the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs?

Article 26, Article 26 of the Constitution deals with the freedom to manage religious affairs. Specifically, clause (b) grants every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. This was a key point of argument for the Sabarimala devotees in the case.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Sabarimala case discussed in the news: 1. The original 2018 Supreme Court verdict was delivered by a five-judge bench. 2. The verdict applied Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination) to strike down the temple's age restriction on women. 3. The Solicitor General argued that the Sabarimala temple is a 'sui generis' case for Lord Ayyappa devotees. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct: The September 28, 2018 ruling was by a five-judge bench. Statement 2 is incorrect: The article mentions the verdict applied Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability), not Article 15. Statement 3 is correct: The Solicitor General specifically argued that the Sabarimala temple is a unique ('sui generis') case.

Q: As per the news, by what majority did the Supreme Court's five-judge bench lift the age restriction on women entering Sabarimala in its 2018 verdict?

4:1, The article explicitly states that on September 28, 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, lifted the age restriction on women visitors to the Sabarimala temple.

Q: What was a central argument presented by the Solicitor General against the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, as per the news article?

That the judgment wrongly applied Article 17 and failed to respect denominational rights under Article 26., The Solicitor General took 'strong exception' to applying the untouchability clause (Article 17) to Sabarimala customs. He argued the case was wrongly decided and that the court failed to grant protection under Article 26(b), which guarantees the right to manage religious affairs to denominations.

PolityHIGH

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

07 Apr 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:September 28, 20184:1 majorityArticle 17Article 26(b)

Bodies:Supreme Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Justice Nagarathna questions the application of Article 17 (untouchability) to Sabarimala's monthly age restrictions for women.

2.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argues the 2018 Sabarimala ruling was wrongly decided and deserves to be declared a wrong law.

3.The core legal debate involves the interplay of Articles 17, 25, and 26(b) regarding religious denomination rights versus equality and social reform.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

A nine-judge Supreme Court bench is examining the constitutional validity of applying Article 17 (untouchability) to Sabarimala temple customs, questioning the logic of the 2018 verdict. The Solicitor General argued the 2018 judgment was wrong and that denominational practices under Article 26 deserve respect. This hearing could redefine the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Bench Size9-Judge Constitution Bench

Key Article DebatedArticle 17 (Untouchability)

Original Ruling DateSeptember 28, 2018

Original Ruling Majority4:1

1-Minute Revision

›Bench Size: 9-Judge Constitution Bench
›Key Article Debated: Article 17 (Untouchability)
›Target this Data: The 2018 Sabarimala verdict was delivered on September 28 by a 5-judge bench with a 4:1 majority.
›Target this Nodal Body: The Supreme Court of India (specifically, a 9-judge Constitution Bench).
›Target this Legal Point: The interplay and conflict between Article 17 (Untouchability), Article 25 (Freedom of Religion), and Article 26(b) (Right of religious denominations to manage their own 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 Scrutiny

A 9-judge SC bench is reviewing whether Article 17 (untouchability) can be applied to religious customs like Sabarimala's age restrictions.

🔍

Legal Challenge

The Centre's SG argues the 2018 Sabarimala judgment was wrongly decided and failed to properly consider Article 26(b) rights.

🔄

Doctrinal Debate

The hearing centers on the conflict between religious denominational rights (Article 26) and constitutional principles of equality and social reform.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

In 2018, a 5-judge SC bench, in a 4:1 verdict, lifted the ban on women of menstruating age (10-50) entering Sabarimala, citing Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, as unconstitutional and equating the practice to untouchability under Article 17. This sparked widespread review petitions. In 2019, a 3:2 ruling referred larger constitutional questions to a bigger bench, leading to the current 9-judge bench examination.

Core Analysis & Implications

Justice Nagarathna's query challenges the conceptual basis of applying Article 17—a right against a historical social evil—to a time-bound religious custom. The SG's argument hinges on Sabarimala being a 'sui generis' case for Lord Ayyappa devotees, protected under Article 26(b) to manage religious affairs. He contends the 2018 court incorrectly denied this protection by not recognizing them as a denomination. The debate tests the limits of judicial review over 'attributes of a deity' and religious tenets.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The 9-judge bench's ruling will set a precedent for how courts balance Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (rights of religious denominations), and fundamental rights like equality (Articles 14-16) and against untouchability (Article 17). It will clarify the scope of 'social reform' under Article 25(2)(b) and determine the extent to which internal religious practices can be scrutinized. The outcome will impact similar cases involving religious customs and gender equality across faiths.

Key Facts at a Glance

Bench Size9-Judge Constitution Bench

Key Article DebatedArticle 17 (Untouchability)

Original Ruling DateSeptember 28, 2018

Original Ruling Majority4:1

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, discussed in the news, guarantees the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, MPSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Sabarimala case discussed in the news:

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

2. The verdict applied Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination) to strike down the temple's age restriction on women.

3. The Solicitor General argued that the Sabarimala temple is a 'sui generis' case for Lord Ayyappa devotees.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

As per the news, by what majority did the Supreme Court's five-judge bench lift the age restriction on women entering Sabarimala in its 2018 verdict?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, MPSC

What was a central argument presented by the Solicitor General against the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, as per the news article?

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 16th Finance Commission (2026-31) Allocates ₹7.91 Lakh Cr to Local Bodies, Discontinues Article 275 Grants for States

Related Current Affairs

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 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 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 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.

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

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.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Landmark Judgment on Sex Work: Article 142, Consent, and Rights Framework

The Supreme Court in May 2026 delivered a landmark judgment on sex work, holding that consenting adult sex workers cannot be forcibly rescued and affirming their constitutional rights despite social disapproval. The judgment invokes Article 142 for legal force, spans nearly 300 pages, and departs from global anti-trafficking assumptions, but raises concerns about institutional implementation and caste discrimination.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Examines Article 17 Application to Sabarimala, Questions 2018 Ruling

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Constitutional Scrutiny

Legal Challenge

Doctrinal Debate

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance