Relevance: GS Paper II (Polity: Fundamental Rights) & GS Paper I (Social Issues)

Source: The Hindu / Indian Express

Context: The Big Review

The Supreme Court is set for a historic moment. A 9-judge Constitution Bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, will begin hearings on April 7, 2026.

Their task? To review the controversial 2018 judgment that allowed women of menstruating age (10-50 years) to enter the famous Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

1. Background: The Story So Far

• The Tradition: For centuries, women aged 10 to 50 were banned from the temple. The reason? The deity, Lord Ayyappa, is a Naishtika Brahmachari (Eternal Celibate), and the presence of women was seen as disturbing his vow.
• The 2018 Verdict: In a landmark ruling, a 5-judge bench declared the ban unconstitutional (4:1 majority).
  • The Logic: Excluding women based on a biological process (menstruation) violates Article 14 (Equality) and Article 25 (Freedom of Worship). The Court famously said, “Devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination.”
  • The Dissent: Justice Indu Malhotra (the lone woman judge) disagreed, arguing that courts should not interfere in deep religious beliefs unless they are harmful (like Sati).

2. The Core Debate: Rights vs. Religion

This case is a battle between Individual Rights (Women) and Group Rights (The Temple).

3. The Bigger Picture (Group of Cases)

The 9-judge bench isn’t just looking at Sabarimala. They have clubbed other similar cases to decide a uniform law for all religions:

• Muslim Women: Entry into Mosques.
• Parsi Women: Rights to enter Fire Temples after marrying non-Parsis.
• Dawoodi Bohras: Validity of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

Key Question: Can the Supreme Court apply modern constitutional values to ancient religious practices?

UPSC Value Box

1. Doctrine of Essentiality:

A legal test invented by the SC (Shirur Mutt Case, 1954). It says the Court will only protect practices that are “essential” to a religion.

• The Dilemma: Judges (who are legal experts, not priests) are now deciding what is essential to a faith.

2. Constitutional Morality:

This concept means we must follow the soul of the Constitution (Justice, Liberty, Equality) even if it clashes with social customs or religious traditions.

Summary

The Sabarimala review is a test for Indian Secularism. The Court must decide if the “Right to Pray” (Equality) overrides the “Right to Manage Faith” (Tradition). The verdict will decide if the Constitution can “reform” religion or if religion has a “no-entry” zone for the judiciary.

One Line Wrap: The Constitution is supreme, but can it edit the scriptures?

Q. “The doctrine of ‘Essential Religious Practices’ has placed the judiciary in a theological dilemma.” Discuss with reference to the Sabarimala review and its impact on gender justice and religious freedom. (10 Marks, 150 Words)

Model Hints

• Introduction: Mention the conflict—Equality (Art 14) vs. Religious Freedom (Art 26).
• Body:
  • The Dilemma: Judges acting as theologians to decide if celibacy is “essential.”
  • Gender Justice: Why excluding women is discrimination (Art 15).
  • Religious Defense: Why the Deity has rights to his tradition.
• Conclusion: The Court must balance rights without rewriting faith entirely.