The interplay between Articles 25 and 26 is central to the Sabarimala reference, which a nine-judge Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant is hearing.
Sabarimala reference will ultimately decide whether 1948 constitutional compromise between religious freedom and social reform still holds in India where religion is both intensely personal and fiercely political
Courts have applied ‘essential religious practice’ test over the decades to decide which practices are protected by the Constitution, and which ones the state can regulate.
Indian secularism and the effectiveness of its constitutional values are under test – both in the Sabarimala temple case and the Delhi assembly election.
Rather than functioning as conventional propaganda, the video operates as a device for interpretation, subtly shaping expectations about future developments in China’s naval trajectory.
Vance, originally sceptical about US launching strikes against Iran, is reported to be worried that the US does not have enough interceptors and offensive missiles, something he has raised with Trump.
American objectives are unmet. They neither have muscle nor motivation to resume the war. As for Iran, the regime didn’t just survive, it’s now led by more radical individuals.
This is one of the worst blogs i came across on this site.
It mistakes a flaw into a wisdom. The author argues that Articles 25 and 26 were intentionally designed to let courts dismantle traditions in the name of reform. But that’s not wisdom, that’s a choice the Assembly made, and she’s validating it by calling it balance.
Articles 25 and 26 cannot both exist equally. One protects individual rights to challenge practices, and the other protects a community’s right to govern itself. The courts have made the first one win by using the language of ‘social reform.’ This isn’t balance. It’s the judiciary deciding it has the right to rewrite what happens inside temples.
A thousand-year-old ritual is now being judged by a framework that’s barely seventy or eighty years old. The courts are deciding what matters inside sacred spaces they don’t understand. By the time people realize what’s happened, the traditions will already be gone, and articles like this will have made it all sound reasonable and progressive.
The real problem is that the Constitution itself is built on a foreign way of thinking about governance. It cannot protect the way Indic civilization actually manages its own institutions. And this article makes sure nobody questions that problem by dressing it up as wisdom.
If sabrimala judgement is reversed, it will open a pandoras box from accepting polygamy to triple talaq as non discriminatory religious practices by few denominations. Religious plurality argument is highly subjective
This is one of the worst blogs i came across on this site.
It mistakes a flaw into a wisdom. The author argues that Articles 25 and 26 were intentionally designed to let courts dismantle traditions in the name of reform. But that’s not wisdom, that’s a choice the Assembly made, and she’s validating it by calling it balance.
Articles 25 and 26 cannot both exist equally. One protects individual rights to challenge practices, and the other protects a community’s right to govern itself. The courts have made the first one win by using the language of ‘social reform.’ This isn’t balance. It’s the judiciary deciding it has the right to rewrite what happens inside temples.
A thousand-year-old ritual is now being judged by a framework that’s barely seventy or eighty years old. The courts are deciding what matters inside sacred spaces they don’t understand. By the time people realize what’s happened, the traditions will already be gone, and articles like this will have made it all sound reasonable and progressive.
The real problem is that the Constitution itself is built on a foreign way of thinking about governance. It cannot protect the way Indic civilization actually manages its own institutions. And this article makes sure nobody questions that problem by dressing it up as wisdom.
What a disaster.
If sabrimala judgement is reversed, it will open a pandoras box from accepting polygamy to triple talaq as non discriminatory religious practices by few denominations. Religious plurality argument is highly subjective