Indian Government's Stand on Article 25(1) and Gender Equality before Supreme Court in 2026

Key Facts

• Date of hearing: 14 and 15 May 2026
• Supreme Court Bench: Nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant
• Main constitutional provision discussed: Article 25(1) - guarantees freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion
• Government's stance: Article 25(1) does not directly provide for gender equality; that is covered by Articles 15 and 16 which prohibit discrimination including on sex
• Emphasis on denominational autonomy as a constitutionally recognized concept
• Advocated legislative primacy over judicial intervention in religious reforms
• Referenced precedent: Sabarimala temple entry issue and related Supreme Court judgments

Background & Context

Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India belongs to Part III, detailing fundamental rights that guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. Article 25(2) allows the State to regulate secular aspects of religious practices for social welfare and reform.

Articles 15 and 16 separately address equality and prohibition of discrimination, including on the grounds of sex. The government contended that religious denominations have autonomy to prescribe different religious practices for men and women under Article 25(1).

The government submitted that such religious reforms should be undertaken by the legislature after proper deliberations, not by courts, to avoid unfettered judicial reformation of religious traditions. The Solicitor General cited the Sabarimala case as an example where court intervention in religious practices was contentious.

Why This Matters for Exams / Exam Relevance

This case is important in understanding the complex interaction between fundamental rights relating to religion and gender equality under the Indian Constitution. It clarifies that Article 25(1) primarily protects religious freedom and conscience, whereas rights against gender discrimination fall under Articles 15 and 16.

The debate also highlights the constitutional principle of denominational autonomy and the limits of judicial review concerning religious practices, underlining the preferred role of the legislature in initiating social reform.

For exam aspirants in Indian Polity and Law, this case illustrates the nuanced reading of constitutional provisions, balancing religious freedom and gender justice, with reference to a landmark issue like the Sabarimala temple entry controversy.

Points to Remember

• Article 25(1): Freedom of conscience and right to free profession, practice and propagation of religion
• Articles 15 and 16: Prohibit discrimination including on the basis of sex (gender equality)
• Denominational autonomy permits religious groups to maintain different practices for men and women
• Legislative bodies, not judiciary, are preferred to undertake religious social reforms through deliberation
• Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard the case in 2026 over 16 days
• The Sabarimala temple entry case is a key precedent underlying the debate