Sabarimala hearing: Should judges rise above their religious perceptions when examining matters of conscience, SC judge asks

The core constitutional debate in this hearing revolves around the friction between individual fundamental rights and the collective rights of religious denominations. Article 25 guarantees an individual's freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, whereas Article 26 protects a religious denomination's right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. UPSC frequently tests the tension between these religious protections and the overarching right to equality guaranteed under Article 14. To resolve such conflicts, the judiciary has historically relied on the Essential Religious Practices test to determine whether a specific ritual or tradition is absolutely core to the faith, and thereby shielded from state or judicial intervention.

The ongoing hearing critically examines the boundaries of judicial review (the power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions) when applied to matters of faith. The Bench questioned whether courts adopting an 'inquisitorial' approach—actively investigating and interpreting religious texts or theology—breaches the autonomy granted to religions. In the original 2018 Indian Young Lawyers Association Case, commonly known as the Sabarimala judgment, the court prioritized constitutional rights over restrictive religious customs. For UPSC Mains, aspirants must analyze the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain to enforce fundamental rights without overstepping into the domain of theological interpretation.

From a GS Paper 4 perspective, the judge's query perfectly encapsulates the ethical conflict between personal belief systems and professional duty. The question of whether judges must rise above their personal 'religious consciousness' highlights the indispensable public service values of impartiality and objectivity. In public office, a judge or civil servant must be guided strictly by Constitutional Morality (the adherence to the core democratic and egalitarian principles of the Constitution) rather than their private faith. Cultivating this separation demonstrates the highest level of professional integrity, ensuring that justice is delivered based on constitutional mandates rather than personal prejudices or majoritarian morals.