CURRENT AFFAIRS | 15 APRIL 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & JUDICIAL BALANCING
What happened?
An Ideas page essay in April 2026 revisits a recurring constitutional dilemma: when parents, acting on deeply held religious convictions, refuse consent for a life-saving blood transfusion for their minor child, what must a court do? The immediate backdrop is a Kerala High Court order involving Jehovah’s Witness parents — the same denomination that gave India the iconic Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986). The tension is classic: Article 25 (freedom of conscience & religion) on one side; Article 21 (right to life) read with the State’s parens patriae duty on the other. The piece frames this as a question not just of religious freedom but of how the Indian legal system weighs faith, autonomy, and the welfare of minors who cannot consent for themselves.
Constitutional Framework
- Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion — subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III.
- Article 26: Freedom of religious denominations to manage their own religious affairs.
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty — the overriding right from which parens patriae draws its constitutional grounding.
- Article 14: Equality before law — applies when religious claims are balanced against equal protection (see Sabarimala).
- Doctrine of Parens Patriae: Latin for “parent of the nation”. Allows the State (via courts) to act as guardian of those unable to protect themselves — minors, mentally incapacitated persons and the unconscious.
- “Essential Religious Practices” (ERP) Test: Laid down in Commissioner HRE v LT Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954). Only practices essential to the religion are protected under Article 25.
CLAT Angle — The Classic Fundamental-Rights Clash
- Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986): Jehovah’s Witness students refused to sing the National Anthem on religious grounds. SC held they could stand silently — their Article 25 right was violated by expulsion. A landmark on conscientious objection.
- Common Cause v UOI (2018): Recognised passive euthanasia and living wills as part of the right to die with dignity under Article 21 — a related autonomy-vs-sanctity-of-life dilemma.
- Indian Young Lawyers Association (Sabarimala, 2018): Articles 14, 15, 17 & 25 balanced — religious exclusion of menstruating women struck down.
- Navtej Singh Johar v UOI (2018): Read down Section 377 IPC; reaffirmed individual dignity under Articles 14, 19, 21.
- KS Puttaswamy v UOI (2017): Recognised privacy and bodily autonomy under Article 21 — central to the informed-consent debate.
- Balancing test: Expect principle-application questions where religious autonomy of a parent clashes with the state’s parens patriae duty, and the student must identify which right prevails for a minor.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Right / Doctrine | Source & Leading Case |
|---|---|
| Religious Freedom | Article 25 — Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) |
| Essential Religious Practices | Shirur Mutt (1954) |
| Right to Life & Dignity | Article 21 — Maneka Gandhi (1978) |
| Right to Die with Dignity | Common Cause (2018) |
| Bodily Autonomy & Privacy | Puttaswamy (2017) |
| Parens Patriae | Court acts as guardian of minors/incapacitated |
| Limits on Article 25 | Public order, morality, health |
| Sabarimala & Article 25 balance | Indian Young Lawyers Association (2018) |
Mnemonic — “B-COPS”
Bijoe Emmanuel · Common Cause · Open Shirur Mutt ERP test · Parens patriae · Sabarimala. When Article 25 meets Article 21, call the B-COPS.
Illustrative CLAT Reasoning Question
Principle: An adult of sound mind has the right to refuse medical treatment as an aspect of personal autonomy. However, where the patient is a minor incapable of giving informed consent, the State, acting through the courts in exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction, may override parental refusal if necessary to protect the best interests of the child.
Facts: The parents of a 9-year-old child suffering from leukaemia refuse blood transfusion citing religious scripture. Doctors say the child will die within days without it.
Question: Can a court order transfusion despite the parents’ objection? Answer: Yes — the court, as parens patriae, protects the best interests of the child. The parents’ Article 25 right is subordinate to the minor’s Article 21 right to life, especially where the minor cannot exercise autonomous choice.
Test Yourself — 10 CLAT-Style MCQs
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
