Supreme Court: Casteist Exclusion Cannot Be Part of Religion; Article 25 Enables State to End Such Practices
Practice PYQs on this topic
500+ questions on Polity with explanations
📌 Summary:
-
A Supreme Court bench in the Sabarimala review case held that any practice which excludes people on the basis of caste cannot be termed a religious practice
-
Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed: "Article 25 of the Constitution recognises the inalienable freedom of conscience of one and all, and enables the state to make a law to end casteist practices in the name of religion"
-
The ruling reinforces that the right to religion under Article 25 is not absolute — it is subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights
-
UPSC significance: This ruling directly engages the tension between Art. 25 (Right to Religion) and Art. 14 (Right to Equality) and Art. 17 (Abolition of Untouchability)
-
The Sabarimala case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018) originally held that the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the temple was unconstitutional; the review petition raised questions of essential religious practices
-
Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices (ERP): Only practices essential to a religion receive protection under Art. 25; casteist exclusions fail this test
-
The court's position aligns with the Constitutional framers' vision — Ambedkar specifically designed Art. 17 (untouchability abolition) and Art. 25(2) to allow state reform of religion-based social discrimination
-
Key implication: State can legislate to reform temple entry, religious practices, and social customs that embed caste hierarchy — without violating freedom of religion
UPSC Classification
See PYQs related to “Polity”
Every classification tag above links to actual UPSC questions asked on that topic — with answer, explanation and elimination logic. Only in the app.