CURRENT AFFAIRS | 10 APRIL 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & FREEDOM OF RELIGION
In a significant development before the Supreme Court’s 9-judge Constitution Bench, the Centre has argued that public morality — not constitutional morality — must be the governing standard in matters of religious faith. The Solicitor General submitted that the “essential religious practices” test is unworkable and urged the bench to interpret Article 26 in its 1950 (original) meaning. The bench is reviewing the landmark 2018 Sabarimala ruling (Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala) that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple. Justice V. Nagarathna observed that “religious denomination” must be understood in the Indian context. The court has reserved judgment.
Why This Matters for CLAT 2027
The Sabarimala case is arguably the most important pending constitutional law case in India. It touches upon the tension between Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 — all core CLAT topics. The “public morality vs constitutional morality” debate is a favourite of CLAT Legal Reasoning setters. The 9-judge bench review means the final judgment will have far-reaching implications for religious freedom, gender equality, and judicial interpretation.
Constitutional & Legal Framework
- Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion — subject to public order, morality, and health
- Article 26: Right of religious denominations to (a) establish institutions, (b) manage religious affairs, (c) own property, (d) administer property according to law
- Article 14: Right to equality before law and equal protection of laws
- Article 15(1): Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth
- Article 51A(e): Fundamental Duty to promote harmony and renounce practices derogatory to dignity of women
- Essential Religious Practices Doctrine: First laid down in Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (Shirur Mutt case, 1954)
The 2018 Sabarimala Verdict — A Quick Recap
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (2018), a 5-judge Constitution Bench ruled 4:1 that the practice of barring women aged 10-50 from Sabarimala temple violated Articles 14, 15, and 25. The majority held that exclusion based on biological characteristics (menstruation) amounted to “untouchability” under Article 17. Justice Indu Malhotra, in a lone dissent, held that constitutional courts should not interfere with essential religious practices of a denomination.
Review petitions were filed, and in 2019, a 5-judge bench referred the matter to a larger 9-judge bench to examine broader questions about the interplay between religious freedom (Articles 25-26) and equality rights (Articles 14-15).
Public Morality vs Constitutional Morality — The Core Debate
The Centre’s argument draws a crucial distinction:
- Public morality = the moral standards and values held by the community, including religious communities. It is one of the grounds under which Articles 25 and 26 themselves permit restrictions.
- Constitutional morality = the values embedded in the Constitution — equality, dignity, liberty, fraternity — as interpreted by courts. This concept was extensively discussed in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018), which decriminalised homosexuality.
The Centre argues that when the Constitution itself uses “morality” as a restriction ground in Articles 25 and 26, it means public morality as understood by the community. If constitutional morality were the standard, the restriction ground would be rendered meaningless because it would always yield to equality rights.
Essential Religious Practices — The Workability Question
The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test, originating from the Shirur Mutt case (1954), requires courts to determine whether a practice is “essential” or “integral” to a religion. The Centre has argued this test is unworkable because it requires secular judges to make theological determinations — deciding what is and is not essential to a faith. This is a significant argument because the ERP test has been used in numerous cases, including those involving jallikattu, triple talaq, and religious dress codes.
CLAT Exam Angle
- Legal Reasoning (HIGH PROBABILITY): Passage-based questions on Articles 25-26 vs Articles 14-15 — balancing religious freedom with gender equality
- Constitutional Law: Essential Religious Practices doctrine — Shirur Mutt (1954), Durgah Committee v Syed Hussain Ali (1961), S.P. Mittal v Union of India (1983)
- Key Debate: Public morality vs Constitutional morality — expect a passage presenting both views for analysis
- Article 26(b): What constitutes a “religious denomination”? Requirements: common faith, common organisation, distinctive name
- Gender Equality: Article 15(1) + Article 51A(e) vs Article 26(b) autonomy — which prevails?
- 9-Judge Bench: Only the largest benches decide fundamental constitutional questions — know the hierarchy
Key Facts at a Glance
| 2018 Verdict | 4:1 majority allowed women entry (Justice Malhotra dissented) |
| Current bench | 9-judge Constitution Bench |
| Centre’s position | Public morality over constitutional morality; ERP test unworkable |
| Key Articles | 14, 15(1), 25, 26, 51A(e) |
| ERP doctrine origin | Shirur Mutt case (1954) |
| Deity status | Lord Ayyappa — Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate) |
| Status | Judgment reserved |
Mnemonic: Articles 25-26 — “FEMPA”
F — Freedom of conscience (Art 25)
E — Establish religious institutions (Art 26(a))
M — Manage religious affairs (Art 26(b))
P — Property — own and acquire (Art 26(c))
A — Administer property according to law (Art 26(d))
Practice Quiz — Test Your Understanding
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
