Constitutional Authorities Must Rise Above Personal Faith: Supreme Court's 9-Judge Bench on Religious Freedom
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the Sabarimala review case along with a batch of connected matters on religious freedom, observed on April 17, 2026 that constitutional authorities must transcend personal faith when addressing religious questions.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi, B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, and Prasanna Varale, is examining foundational questions about the scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26.
The nine-judge bench is addressing the meaning of "morality" in Articles 25 and 26 — specifically, whether it means constitutional morality (the values underlying the Constitution) or popular/community morality (what religious communities regard as moral).
The central question: Can a court substitute constitutional morality for the sincere beliefs of a religious community in determining whether a religious practice is protected?
The Solicitor General urged the court to abandon the "Essential Religious Practices" (ERP) doctrine, arguing it makes courts de facto religious adjudicators on theological questions beyond their competence.
Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion
Article 25 is one of the most litigated provisions in the Constitution. It guarantees religious freedom but subjects it to several limitations that have generated decades of jurisprudence.
The court's observation that constitutional authorities must rise above personal beliefs is directed at BOTH judges (who might have personal religious views on practices like temple entry) AND public functionaries. This signals the court may ultimately anchor its analysis in constitutional values rather than majoritarian religious sentiment.
Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs
Article 26 is closely related to Article 25 but operates at the institutional level rather than the individual level. It protects the rights of religious denominations.
The Sabarimala case raised the question: if the Nair Service Society (the denominational body managing the temple) considers the exclusion of women of menstruating age an essential religious practice, can the constitutional guarantee under Article 26(b) ("manage its own affairs in matters of religion") protect that exclusion? The nine-judge bench's answer will define the scope of denominational autonomy for all religious communities.
Constitutional Morality vs Popular Morality
This is a crucial conceptual distinction in constitutional law with wide-ranging implications.
The court's observation that constitutional authorities must transcend personal faith reflects the constitutional morality school — the idea that judges, when sitting as constitutional adjudicators, must apply the Constitution's values rather than their personal theological beliefs, however sincere.
- Nine-judge bench composition: CJI Surya Kant + 8 Justices (Bagchi, Nagarathna, Mahadevan, Sundresh, Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Masih, Varale)
- Original Sabarimala 5-judge bench (2018): Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra — 4:1 in favour of allowing women's entry
- Reference to 9-judge bench: Made in 2019 review petitions — questions of law referred to a larger bench
- Article 25: Individual freedom of religion (subject to public order, morality, health)
- Article 26: Denominational autonomy (same limitations)
- Essential Religious Practices test: Established in Shirur Mutt (1954) — only practices "essential" to the religion are protected under Article 25/26 from state regulation
- Article 142: Supreme Court can pass orders necessary for "complete justice" — used in Sabarimala 2018 to direct implementation
- Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Supreme Court used constitutional morality to override popular morality
- The nine-judge bench is simultaneously examining 7+ connected religious freedom matters (mosques, dargahs, etc.) — making this the most comprehensive constitutional examination of religious freedom in India's judicial history