Sabarimala Reference: SC 9-Judge Bench Tests Art. 25 vs Art. 26 on Temple Control — CLAT Legal Reasoning

CURRENT AFFAIRS | 13 APRIL 2026

CLAT GK + LEGAL REASONING + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The Supreme Court’s 9-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, has resumed hearings on the landmark Sabarimala reference — a case that goes far beyond the question of women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple. The reference, which originated from the 2018 decision in Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala, now tests the very foundations of the relationship between religion, religious denominations, and the state under the Indian Constitution.

The hearings, which commenced on April 7, 2026, have brought to the forefront submissions from the BJP-led Centre and various Hindu religious organisations challenging the scope of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine. The 9-judge bench — comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, and Joymalya Bagchi — is examining 7 constitutional questions that probe the interplay between Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 26 (rights of religious denominations).

At the heart of this reference lies a fundamental constitutional tension: Can the state regulate temple practices? Can religious denominations define what constitutes an “essential religious practice”? How do the rights of individual worshippers under Article 25 interact with the collective rights of religious denominations under Article 26? The bench is also examining the broader question of state control over Hindu temples — a contentious issue in Tamil Nadu and Kerala — and whether Article 25(2)(a), which empowers the state to regulate “economic, financial, political or secular activity” associated with religious practice, can extend to regulating entry into temples.

The Constitutional Framework: Art. 25 vs Art. 26

The Sabarimala reference fundamentally tests the boundary between two closely related but distinct constitutional provisions. Article 25 guarantees individual freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Article 26, on the other hand, protects the collective rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, establish and maintain institutions, and own and administer property.

The tension arises because what an individual claims as a right under Article 25 may conflict with what a denomination claims as its right under Article 26. In the original 2018 Sabarimala judgment, the 4:1 majority held that the temple’s custom of excluding women aged 10-50 violated Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 25 (freedom of religion). However, Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent argued that the court should not interfere with the essential religious practices of a denomination.

The Essential Religious Practices Test Under Scrutiny

The ERP test, established in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case, has been one of the most controversial doctrines in Indian constitutional law. Under this test, the Supreme Court determines whether a particular practice is “essential” or “integral” to a religion. If a practice is deemed essential, it receives constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26; if not, the state can regulate or even prohibit it.

The Centre, in its submissions before the 9-judge bench, has challenged the very foundations of the ERP test, arguing that it is not for courts to determine what is essential to a religion — that power belongs to the religious denomination itself. This position, if accepted, would significantly expand the autonomy of religious denominations under Article 26 while potentially limiting the state’s regulatory power under Article 25(2).

The implications of this reference extend far beyond Sabarimala. If the bench reconsiders the ERP doctrine, it could affect the constitutional validity of several state laws regulating temple administration, entry rights, and management of religious endowments across India — particularly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where state boards control thousands of Hindu temples.

State Control of Temples: The Broader Debate

Beyond the specific question of women’s entry, the Sabarimala reference has opened up a wider debate about state control over Hindu temples. In states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) departments control thousands of temples, managing their finances, appointing priests, and administering properties. Hindu organisations have long argued that this amounts to discrimination — since mosques and churches are not subject to similar state control — and violates Article 26’s guarantee of denominational autonomy.

Article 25(2)(b) specifically empowers the state to make laws “providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.” This provision, unique to Hindu institutions, has been used to justify extensive state regulation of temples. The 9-judge bench must now determine the outer limits of this power.