Sabarimala Review And Constitutional Limits Of Religious Freedom

Constitutional basis of religious freedom:

• Article 25 scope: guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights
• Embedded limits: religious freedom is not absolute and must coexist with equality, dignity, and liberty

Distinction between religious and secular activities:

• Shirur Mutt doctrine: essential religious practices are protected, while secular aspects like administration and finance can be regulated by the state
• Judicial role: courts must determine what constitutes “essential practices,” placing them in a complex theological domain

Doctrine of essential religious practices:

• Conceptual purpose: aims to balance autonomy of religion with accountability under constitutional norms
• Practical challenge: requires courts to interpret faith-based practices, creating institutional discomfort

Interplay between Articles 25 and 26:

• Individual vs collective rights: Article 25 protects individuals, while Article 26 protects denominational autonomy
• Source of conflict: arises when group rights restrict individual access, equality, or dignity

Sabarimala judgment and constitutional morality:

• Core issue: exclusion of women of a certain age group was held to violate equality and dignity
• Denomination claim rejected: temple was not recognised as a separate religious denomination
• Constitutional morality: introduced as a standard to test religious practices against fundamental rights

Limits and risks of constitutional morality:

• Expanding judicial reach: may draw courts into areas better left to religious communities
• Normative concern: should not become a blanket tool overriding all religious practices

Nature and scope of denominational rights:

• Fundamental right status: Article 26 rights are enforceable and can be defended in courts
• SP Mittal test: denomination requires common faith, organisation, and distinct identity
• Harmonisation principle: Article 26 rights are not superior to Articles 14, 15, and 21

Article 25(2)(b) and social reform:

• Constitutional intent: allows the state to open Hindu religious institutions to all sections
• Anti-exclusion principle: aimed at dismantling caste-based discrimination within religion
• Reform mechanism: change must occur through law, not executive action

Balancing faith and constitutional values:

• Core principle: Constitution provides the framework within which faith operates
• Dual commitment: protects religious diversity while enabling social reform
• Judicial responsibility: requires careful balancing, restraint, and clarity in adjudication