CURRENT AFFAIRS | 22 April 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (ARTICLES 25 & 26)
A 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, has begun examining the reference arising out of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict. At its heart lies a deceptively simple question: where does the State’s power to regulate religion end, and the denomination’s right to self-govern begin?
On the opening days, the Bench remarked that there was “no need to attack judicial review power” and cautioned that giving one group the right to exclude another from entry could lead to “civil war.” For a CLAT 2027 aspirant, this reference is the most important temple-access/religious-freedom case in a generation — and a natural exam hook for Articles 25, 26 and 17, the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test, and constitutional morality.
Constitutional Framework — Articles 25 & 26
- Article 25(1) — Freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
- Article 25(2)(a) — State may make laws regulating any economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice.
- Article 25(2)(b) — State may provide for social welfare and reform and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes.
- Article 26 — Every religious denomination has the right to establish institutions, manage its own affairs in matters of religion, own and administer property, subject to public order, morality and health.
- Article 17 — Abolishes “untouchability” in any form; relied on in Justice Chandrachud’s 2018 concurrence to strike down exclusion of menstruating women.
The Sabarimala reference effectively asks: when Article 25(2)(a) collides with Article 26, which prevails, and on what test?
Why This Matters for CLAT 2027
- Doctrinal hook: The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test — whether a practice is so central to a religion that stripping it destroys the religion — is under review. CLAT passages have historically built principle-application questions around ERP.
- Trend: Post-Sabarimala, the reference now spans Parsi women, Muslim women entry into mosques, and female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohras. Expect a common-principles answer that cuts across faiths.
- Trap to watch: Students confuse Art 25 (individual) with Art 26 (collective/denominational). The 2018 majority leaned Art 25 (individual women’s rights); review petitioners rely on Art 26 (denominational autonomy). CLAT principle-application questions will test this distinction.
- Likely exam angle: A passage giving a principle of “secular regulation” followed by a fact pattern on temple access, dress codes, or entry rules — your job is to apply the Shirur Mutt / Durgah Committee test.
Key Cases at a Glance
| Case | Proposition |
|---|---|
| Shirur Mutt (1954) | “What constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself” — foundation of the ERP test. |
| Durgah Committee, Ajmer (1961) | Narrowed ERP — “superstitious” accretions not integral to the religion are not protected. |
| Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin (1962) | Dawoodi Bohra excommunication upheld as part of Art 26; referred alongside Sabarimala. |
| S.P. Mittal v UoI (1983) | 3-fold test for “religious denomination”: (i) common faith, (ii) common organisation, (iii) distinctive name. |
| Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (2018) | Struck down Sabarimala’s bar on women 10–50; 4:1 majority — the ruling now under reference. |
| Kantaru Rajeevaru (2019) | Larger-bench referral that seeded the current 9-judge hearing. |
Mnemonic — "SECULAR"
Shirur Mutt (ERP) · Essential test narrowed by Durgah · Common faith / organisation / name (S.P. Mittal) · Under Art 25(2)(a) secular activities · Law reform under 25(2)(b) · Art 17 (untouchability) · Religious denomination autonomy under Art 26.
Remember: Public order, morality, health — the triple trump card over both Art 25 and Art 26.
The Seven Reference Questions
The 9-judge Bench is answering: (i) scope of Art 25 and Art 26 rights; (ii) scope of judicial review of religious practices; (iii) scope of the word “morality” — does it import constitutional morality?; (iv) whether Art 26 denominational rights are subject to other Part III rights; (v) whether ERP can be decided by courts; (vi) proper test for a “religious denomination”; and (vii) whether a person not belonging to a denomination can challenge its practices in a PIL.
Test Yourself: 10-Question CLAT Practice Quiz
Ten CLAT-style questions on this story — factual recall, constitutional articles, and principle-application reasoning. Tap an option to lock it in; explanations appear on submit.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
Source: Indian Express · The Hindu · LiveLaw · Supreme Court Observer.
