Relevance: GS Paper II – Polity (Federalism, Constitutional Law, Centre-State Relations, Governance)
For Prelims:
- Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014; Article 3; Section 5; Amaravati; Joint Capital (Hyderabad); Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA); Greenfield Capital; Land Pooling Scheme (LPS); Retrospective Legislation (June 2, 2024); Telangana Formation; Residual Andhra Pradesh
For Mains:
- State Reorganisation; Capital Formation; Cooperative Federalism; Centre-State Relations; Regional Imbalance in Andhra Pradesh; Land Pooling and Farmer Rights; Policy Stability; Administrative Decentralisation vs Centralisation; Judicial Review; Rule of Law; Legitimate Expectation
Why in News?
- The President of India, Droupadi Murmu, has granted assent to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Act, 2026, thereby conferring formal legal status upon Amaravati as the sole capital of Andhra Pradesh.
- This marks a significant milestone in the post-bifurcation administrative consolidation of Andhra Pradesh, resolving a long-standing issue related to capital determination.
Background and Constitutional Context
The issue originates from the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, enacted under Article 3 of the Constitution.
The Act provided that:
- Telangana would be created as a separate state.
- Hyderabad would function as a joint capital for both states for a period of ten years.
- After June 2024, Hyderabad would become the exclusive capital of Telangana, necessitating a new capital for Andhra Pradesh.
In response, the State identified Amaravati as a greenfield capital, with development supported by the Land Pooling Scheme, under which farmers voluntarily contributed land in return for developed plots and compensation.
Evolution of the Capital Issue
- The capital issue evolved into a major political and administrative debate.
- Initially, Amaravati was developed as the capital under the leadership of N. Chandrababu Naidu. However, after 2019, a proposal emerged to establish a three-capital model, distributing governance functions across Visakhapatnam, Amaravati, and Kurnool.
- This shift led to widespread protests and legal challenges. In 2022, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the State could not arbitrarily change the capital, especially when commitments had been made to farmers under the Land Pooling Scheme.
- Subsequently, the State returned to the policy of a single capital at Amaravati, leading to the present amendment.
Key Features of the Amendment Act, 2026
- The Amendment Act introduces clarity and finality to the capital issue.
- It amends Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, explicitly recognising Amaravati as the sole and permanent capital.
- The insertion of the phrase “at Amaravati” removes ambiguity regarding the location of governance.
- The Act further clarifies that Amaravati includes areas notified under the AP Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Act, 2014, ensuring legal precision in defining the capital region.
- Importantly, the amendment is given retrospective effect from June 2, 2024, aligning the legal framework with the end of Hyderabad’s joint capital status.
Constitutional Dimensions
The development highlights several constitutional principles.
- Article 3 and Parliamentary Authority:
The power to reorganise states lies with Parliament. Since Andhra Pradesh itself is a product of parliamentary legislation, the determination of its capital requires legal sanction through amendment of the parent Act. - Absence of Explicit Constitutional Provision
The Constitution does not specify how a state capital is to be determined. This places reliance on statutory law, making legislative clarity essential. - Federal Structure
The case reflects India’s quasi-federal system, where the Centre plays a decisive role in structural matters. At the same time, the process demonstrates cooperative federalism, as the amendment was supported by both Union and State governments.
Judicial Dimension
The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s intervention in 2022 underscores the role of the judiciary in ensuring constitutional compliance.
The Court emphasised that:
- Governance decisions must adhere to the rule of law.
- Policy changes cannot violate the legitimate expectations of stakeholders, particularly farmers.
This reflects the broader principles of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226, ensuring that executive actions remain within constitutional limits.
Core Debate: Federalism and Policy Stability
- The Amaravati issue reflects a tension between state autonomy and legal certainty.
- While states possess administrative flexibility, decisions involving structural aspects like capital formation require legal backing and continuity.
- Frequent policy reversals can undermine governance, investor confidence, and public trust.
- The case also raises the question of whether decentralisation through multiple capitals promotes regional development or leads to administrative inefficiency.
Implications
- The amendment provides clarity and finality to the capital issue, enabling focused governance and planning.
- It strengthens policy stability, which is crucial for infrastructure development and investment. The decision also reinforces the importance of legislative backing in major governance decisions.
- For Andhra Pradesh, it marks a step towards administrative consolidation and long-term planning.
Challenges
- Despite the resolution, certain challenges remain.
- Issues related to regional imbalance persist, particularly concerning the development of backward regions. Concerns regarding the Land Pooling Scheme, including compensation and rehabilitation of farmers, require continued attention.
- Balancing central authority with state autonomy remains a broader constitutional challenge.
Way Forward
The focus should now shift to effective implementation and inclusive development.
Ensuring equitable regional growth, protecting stakeholder interests, and maintaining policy continuity will be critical. Strengthening cooperative federalism can further enhance coordination between the Union and State governments.
Conclusion
The legal recognition of Amaravati as the sole capital represents a constitutionally grounded resolution of a complex post-bifurcation issue. It highlights the interplay between Article 3, federalism, judicial oversight, and governance stability, reinforcing the importance of legally backed and consistent policy decisions.
CARE MAINS
CARE MCQ
Q. Consider the following statements regarding the governance structure and legal framework of the Capital Region of Andhra Pradesh (Amaravati):
Statement 1: The Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Act, 2014, mandates the Authority to act as a special planning body with powers such as declaring Town Planning Schemes and levying Betterment Charges.
Statement 2: Under the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020, the High Court was permanently shifted to Kurnool, establishing a tri-capital model.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
(a) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct and Statement 2 explains Statement 1
(b) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct but Statement 2 does not explain Statement 1
(c) Statement 1 is correct but Statement 2 is incorrect
(d) Statement 1 is incorrect but Statement 2 is correct
Ans: (c)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The APCRDA Act, 2014 establishes the Authority as a statutory planning and development body for the capital region. It empowers it to implement land pooling, prepare master plans, declare Town Planning Schemes, and levy Betterment Charges to finance infrastructure development, reflecting a modern urban governance framework.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Although the 2020 Act proposed a tri-capital model (Amaravati–Visakhapatnam–Kurnool), it was repealed in 2021, and the judicial capital was never operationalized. The High Court continued in Amaravati, and the proposal remained legally ineffective due to repeal and ongoing judicial scrutiny.
Q.Consider the following statements regarding the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh in the context of Amaravati:
- Under Article 169, Parliament can create or abolish a Legislative Council based on a resolution passed by a simple majority in the State Assembly.
- The Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council are situated in Amaravati, established under the APCRDA Act, 2014.
- The Legislative Council is a permanent house, with one-third of its members retiring every year.
- The Governor can dissolve the Legislative Assembly before its term on the advice of the Chief Minister.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
(a) Only two
(b) Only three
(c) All of the above
(d) None
Ans: (a)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: Under Article 169, the resolution for creation or abolition of a Legislative Council must be passed by a special majority, not a simple majority, making the process more rigorous and constitutionally safeguarded.
Statement 2 is correct: Amaravati was notified as the capital under the APCRDA Act, 2014, and houses the legislative institutions of Andhra Pradesh as part of planned administrative infrastructure.
Statement 3 is incorrect: The Legislative Council is indeed a permanent body, but one-third of its members retire every two years, not annually, ensuring continuity in the upper house.
Statement 4 is correct: Under Article 174, the Governor can dissolve the Legislative Assembly on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, reflecting parliamentary executive responsibility.
Q. Consider the following statements:
Statement 1: The notification of Amaravati as a capital city under the APCRDA Act, 2014, led to a de-facto suspension of traditional Panchayati Raj functions within the capital region.
Statement 2: The APCRDA Act grants overriding planning and development powers to the Authority, superseding Gram Panchayat powers under the Panchayat Raj Act.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
(a) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct and Statement 2 explains Statement 1
(b) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct but Statement 2 does not explain Statement 1
(c) Statement 1 is correct but Statement 2 is incorrect
(d) Statement 1 is incorrect but Statement 2 is correct
Ans: (a)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The creation of the Amaravati capital region under APCRDA resulted in a functional shift away from traditional Panchayati Raj institutions, as planning and development responsibilities were centralized under a specialized authority.
Statement 2 is correct: The APCRDA Act provides overriding statutory authority to the development body over land use, planning, and infrastructure, effectively limiting the role of Gram Panchayats. This legal primacy explains why local self-government functions were curtailed within the notified capital region.
Q.With reference to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, consider the following statements:
- The Act makes the recommendations of the Central Government binding on both successor States in matters relating to distribution of assets and liabilities.
- The Governor of the common capital was given special responsibility with respect to law and order for a limited period.
- The Act provides that all institutions of national importance located in the residuary State shall be under the exclusive control of that State.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Ans: (b)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Act provides a framework for allocation and adjudication through the Central Government, but its role is largely facilitative and supervisory. Not all directions are strictly binding in nature, especially where inter-state disputes may still require negotiation or adjudication.
Statement 2 is correct: The Governor of the common capital (Hyderabad) was vested with special responsibility for law and order, internal security, and protection of minorities, reflecting the transitional sensitivity during bifurcation.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Institutions of national importance remain under the Union Government’s control, irrespective of their location. The Act does not transfer exclusive authority over such institutions to the residuary State.
FAQs
Q1.Why is Amaravati in news?
Amaravati gained legal status as the sole capital after assent to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Act, 2026, resolving a long-standing post-bifurcation issue.
Q2. What was the original provision under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014?
The Act created Telangana and provided Hyderabad as a joint capital for 10 years, after which Andhra Pradesh had to establish its own capital.
Q3. What is the significance of Article 3 in this context?
Article 3 empowers Parliament to reorganise states. Since AP was created by law, its capital also requires statutory backing.
Q4. What does the 2026 Amendment Act provide?
It amends Section 5 to declare Amaravati as the sole and permanent capital, removing ambiguity and giving retrospective effect from June 2, 2024.
Q5. What was the three-capital controversy?
The state proposed decentralisation with capitals at Visakhapatnam, Amaravati, and Kurnool, which led to protests and legal challenges before being reversed.
Relevance: GS Paper III – Agriculture & Allied Sectors, Blue Economy, Food Security
For Prelims:
- PMMSY, Blue Revolution, National Fisheries Digital Platform (NFDP), Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund (FIDF), Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), Biofloc Technology
For Mains:
- Blue Economy, Value Chain Integration, Aquaculture Intensification, Export Competitiveness, Post-Harvest Infrastructure, Climate Resilience, Marine Resource Governance, Financial Inclusion of Fishers, Digital Governance in Agriculture, Livelihood Diversification
Why in News?
The Government of India has allocated a record ₹2,761.80 crore for the fisheries sector in the Union Budget 2026–27. This reflects a policy shift towards strengthening fisheries as a key pillar of the Blue Economy. The focus is on consolidating gains from major schemes like PMMSY and improving infrastructure, technology adoption, and governance. The reforms aim to enhance productivity, boost exports, and ensure socio-economic inclusion of over 3 crore fishers. This marks a transition towards a modern, organized, and value-chain-driven fisheries sector.
Background and Context
- India’s fisheries sector has undergone rapid expansion over the past decade, transitioning from a traditional livelihood activity to a commercial and export-oriented sector.
- Policy interventions such as the Blue Revolution laid the foundation for increased production and infrastructure development.
- Subsequently, targeted schemes like PMMSY have aimed to address systemic gaps in technology, processing, and market access. The sector is now increasingly linked to national priorities such as food security, employment generation, and climate resilience.With growing global demand for seafood and the need for sustainable resource use, fisheries are emerging as a strategic component of India’s development model.
BLUE REVOLUTION
- The Blue Revolution began in India during the 1980s to increase fish production through scientific aquaculture.
- It responded to the growing demand for fish as a protein source and aimed to uplift fishing-dependent communities.
- The focus was on modernizing the fisheries sector using advanced techniques, sustainable practices, and efficient resource management.
- It encouraged both inland and marine aquaculture, helping expand the overall scope of fish farming in the country.
- The initiative played a key role in improving food security and nutrition across regions.
- It also contributed significantly to rural development by increasing income opportunities in coastal and inland areas.
Concept and Transformation of Fisheries Sector
- The transformation of the fisheries sector involves moving beyond mere production to a comprehensive value-chain approach.
- This includes aquaculture development, marine fishing, cold chain logistics, processing, marketing, and export integration.
- The sector is increasingly adopting modern technologies such as precision aquaculture, water-efficient systems, and digital platforms for governance. This shift is aligned with the Blue Economy approach, which focuses on sustainable use of marine and aquatic resources while promoting economic growth.
- The emphasis is also on formalisation, ensuring that fishers are integrated into institutional frameworks through credit, insurance, and digital identity systems.
Data and Trends
- India is the second-largest fish producer globally, contributing about 8% to world fish production.
- Fish production has more than doubled over the last decade, increasing from 95.79 lakh tonnes in FY 2013–14 to 197.75 lakh tonnes in FY 2024–25.
- The fisheries sector contributes 7.43% to Agricultural Gross Value Added, making it a major contributor among allied sectors.
- Seafood exports have reached ₹62,408 crore, with frozen shrimp being the dominant export product.
Potential of the Sector
- India has extensive inland water resources covering 31.5 lakh hectares, providing significant scope for freshwater aquaculture.
- The country’s coastline of 11,099 km and EEZ of 24 lakh sq. km offer vast marine resource potential.
- Fisheries are critical for nutritional security, as fish is a low-cost and high-protein food source.
- The sector supports livelihoods of around 30 million people, especially among coastal and marginalized communities.
- India has strong potential to emerge as a global leader in processed and value-added seafood exports.
Key Government Initiatives (Core Focus: PMMSY)
- Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY)PMMSY is a flagship scheme launched in 2020 with an investment of ₹20,050 crore to bring about a “Blue Revolution 2.0” in India.
- It aims to increase fish production, enhance productivity, and modernise the fisheries value chain.
- The scheme focuses on expanding aquaculture, improving broodstock quality, promoting deep-sea fishing, and strengthening post-harvest infrastructure .
- It also aims to double fishers’ income, generate employment, and boost exports.
- A key aspect of PMMSY is its emphasis on end-to-end value chain development, from production to market, ensuring minimal wastage and better price realisation.
- It also promotes cluster-based development and adoption of modern technologies.
- The National Fisheries Digital Platform enables digital identity creation and ensures targeted delivery of welfare schemes.
- The Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund supports large-scale infrastructure such as fishing harbours, cold storage, and landing centres.
Core Issues Involved
- Despite growth in production, productivity per unit area remains low in many regions.
- The fisheries value chain is fragmented, with gaps in storage, processing, and marketing.
- Sustainability concerns such as overfishing and ecosystem degradation pose long-term risks.
- There is also limited formalisation and institutional integration of small-scale fishers.
Challenges
- Post-harvest losses remain significant due to inadequate cold chain infrastructure.
- Climate change impacts, including rising sea temperatures and extreme weather events, affect fish stocks and livelihoods.
- Overfishing in near-shore areas threatens marine biodiversity and long-term sustainability.
- Dependence on informal credit continues among traditional fishers.
- Regional disparities in infrastructure and access limit inclusive growth.
Way Forward
- Promoting advanced aquaculture techniques such as Biofloc and Recirculatory Aquaculture Systems can improve productivity.
- Modernisation of infrastructure, including cold chains and fishing harbours, is essential to reduce wastage and enhance export quality.
- Encouraging deep-sea fishing can help utilise underexploited resources in the EEZ.
- Strengthening Fisheries Farmer Producer Organizations can improve market access and income stability.
- Strict implementation of sustainable fishing regulations is necessary to balance growth with ecological conservation.
Conclusion
India’s fisheries sector is transitioning into a modern, technology-driven component of the Blue Economy. With strong policy support through schemes like PMMSY and increasing budgetary allocation, the sector has the potential to significantly contribute to economic growth and livelihood security. Sustained focus on sustainability, infrastructure, and inclusion will be critical to realizing this potential.UPSC PYQ
Q. What is Blue Economy? Examine its relevance for India with special reference to fisheries. (GS Paper III)
CARE MCQ
Q. The concept of Blue Economy primarily refers to:
(a) Expansion of maritime trade routes
(b) Sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth
(c) Exclusive exploitation of deep-sea minerals
(d) Development of naval defense capabilities
Ans: (b)
Explanation:
The Blue Economy refers to the sustainable use of ocean and aquatic resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and ecosystem health, integrating environmental conservation with economic development.
Q.With reference to PM Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) and Kisan Credit Card (KCC) for fishers, consider the following statements:
- Both PMMSY and KCC aim to provide working capital support to fishers and fish farmers.
- PMMSY focuses on long-term infrastructure development, whereas KCC addresses short-term credit needs.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Ans: (b)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: PMMSY primarily supports infrastructure, capacity building, and value chain development, while working capital support is specifically addressed under schemes like KCC.
Statement 2 is correct: PMMSY targets long-term sectoral development, whereas KCC provides short-term credit and liquidity support, making them complementary but distinct interventions.
Q. With reference to PM Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY), consider the following statements:
- The scheme aims at enhancing productivity primarily through expansion of fishing area and fleet size.
- The scheme promotes efficiency in production through technological and infrastructure interventions.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Ans: (b)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: PMMSY does not primarily rely on expansion of fishing area or fleet size, as that may lead to overexploitation of resources; instead, it emphasizes sustainability.
Statement 2 is correct: The scheme focuses on technology-driven productivity, including aquaculture intensification, cold chain development, and value chain efficiency, ensuring sustainable growth rather than mere expansion.
Q. Which of the following statements best reflects the role of informal sources of agricultural credit in India?
(a) Informal sources, like moneylenders and relatives, are insignificant compared to formal institutions like banks and cooperatives.
(b) Informal sources primarily cater to long-term credit needs for agricultural investments like land purchase and irrigation projects.
(c) Despite regulatory efforts to promote formal finance, informal sources continue to play a substantial role due to factors like accessibility and timely availability.
(d) The interest rates charged by informal sources are always lower than those of formal institutions.
Ans: (c)
Explanation:
Informal credit sources such as moneylenders, traders, and relatives continue to play a significant role in rural credit markets due to their ease of access, minimal documentation, and quick disbursement. Despite expansion of institutional credit, issues like collateral requirements, delays, and procedural complexities keep farmers dependent on informal sources for short-term and emergency needs.
FAQs
Q1. What is PMMSY and why is it important?
PMMSY is a flagship scheme launched in 2020 to modernize fisheries through value chain development, infrastructure, and technology, aiming to increase production and incomes.
Q2. What is meant by Blue Economy?
It refers to sustainable use of ocean and aquatic resources for economic growth, livelihood generation, and environmental conservation.
Q3. Why is fisheries important for India?
It contributes to food security, employment, exports, and agricultural GVA.
Q4. What are major challenges in fisheries?
Post-harvest losses, climate change, overfishing, and lack of infrastructure are key challenges.
Q5. What is the role of NFDP?
It provides digital identity to fishers and improves governance and service delivery.
Relevance: GS Paper II – Polity (Fundamental Rights, Judiciary, Religious Freedom, Constitutional Interpretation)
For Prelims:
- Article 14, Article 15, Article 17, Article 25, Article 26, Religious Denomination, Essential Religious Practices, Sabarimala
For Mains:
- Constitutional Morality, Faith vs Rights, Judicial Review in Religion, Gender Justice, Intrareligious Diversity, Essential Religious Practices Doctrine
Why in News?
- The Supreme Court has constituted a nine-judge Bench to examine review petitions arising from the Sabarimala case.
- The Union government has argued that rigid definitions of “religious denomination” and “essential religious practices” may distort the inherently plural and diverse nature of Hinduism.
- The Court will also examine the broader constitutional question regarding the extent to which courts can intervene in matters of faith.
Background and Historical Context
- The Sabarimala Temple, located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala, is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, who is believed to be a celibate deity.
- The temple follows a distinct religious tradition where devotees undertake a 41-day penance involving strict discipline and renunciation before pilgrimage.
- Traditionally, women aged between 10 and 50 years were not permitted to enter the temple
- It is based on the belief that their presence would violate the celibate nature of the deity.
- This custom existed for decades and was considered an integral part of temple practice.
- The restriction was first legally upheld by the Kerala High Court in 1991 in the S. Mahendran case.
- It is where the court held that the practice was constitutional and did not violate Articles 14 or 25.
Nature of the Sabarimala Practice
- The exclusion was not universal but applied only to women of menstruating age, reflecting a specific religious belief linked to the deity’s celibacy.
- The temple’s practices are embedded in a broader system of rituals, including penance, austerity, and discipline.
- The Travancore Devaswom Board, which administers the temple, maintained that the restriction was an essential religious practice protected under Article 26.
- It also relied on Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, which allowed exclusion based on custom.
- However, critics argued that such practices reflected patriarchal norms and were inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
Timeline of Legal Developments
- The issue reached the Supreme Court in 2006 through a petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging the ban on women’s entry.
- The matter underwent several stages:
- it was referred to a three-judge Bench in 2008, heard in detail in 2016, and later referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench in 2017.
Landmark Judgement of Supreme Court
- In 2018, the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment.
- Following widespread protests and implementation challenges, the Court in 2019 referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.
- The case, titled Kantaru Rajeevaru v Indian Young Lawyers Association, remains pending and is now being examined by a nine-judge Bench.
Key Constitutional Issues
- The case raises several fundamental constitutional questions.
- It examines whether the exclusion of women violates the right to equality under Article 14 and the prohibition of discrimination under Article 15.
- It also questions whether such exclusion amounts to a form of untouchability under Article 17.
- Another key issue is whether devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26.
- The Court must also determine whether the exclusion qualifies as an essential religious practice under Article 25.
- Additionally, the case raises a broader question about the extent of judicial intervention in religious matters and the limits of constitutional courts in interpreting faith-based practices.
Supreme Court Judgment (2018)
- In a 4:1 majority judgment, the Supreme Court declared the exclusion of women unconstitutional.
- The Court held that the practice violated fundamental rights, particularly equality and dignity. It rejected the claim that Ayyappa devotees formed a separate religious denomination, stating that there was no distinct group with exclusive beliefs or practices.
- The Court also ruled that the exclusion was not an essential religious practice and struck down Rule 3(b) as unconstitutional.
- It observed that exclusion based on biological attributes amounted to discrimination and could be seen as a form of untouchability.
- The dissenting opinion by Justice Indu Malhotra emphasised judicial restraint and argued that courts should not interfere in religious practices unless they are oppressive or socially harmful.
Centre’s Recent Stand (2026)
|
Core Debate: Faith, Equality and Judicial Role
- The Sabarimala case reflects a deep constitutional tension between competing principles.
- On one side is the argument of religious autonomy, where communities claim the right to manage their internal affairs under Article 26
- . On the other side is the principle of equality and non-discrimination, which demands that all individuals have equal access to public religious institutions.
- The case also raises the issue of constitutional morality versus social morality. While the Constitution prioritises dignity and equality, religious practices are often shaped by tradition and belief.
- A critical dimension of the debate is the role of courts in interpreting religious practices.
Implications
- It will influence the balance between gender justice and religious freedom, setting a precedent for similar issues across religions.
- The judgment could impact cases involving entry of women into mosques, Parsi fire temples, and practices like female genital mutilation.
- More broadly, it will shape the relationship between judiciary and religion in India’s constitutional framework.
Challenges
- The Court faces the challenge of balancing competing constitutional values without overstepping its institutional role.
- Determining what constitutes an essential practice remains inherently subjective.
- Public resistance and social tensions complicate the implementation of judicial decisions. There is also a risk that excessive judicial intervention may undermine religious autonomy, while insufficient intervention may perpetuate discrimination.
Way Forward
A balanced approach is required that respects religious diversity while upholding fundamental rights. The Court may need to refine the essential religious practices doctrine to limit judicial overreach. Engagement with scholars, communities, and reform movements may also help in evolving socially acceptable solutions.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala case represents a landmark moment in India’s constitutional evolution. It brings into focus the complex interplay between faith, law, and rights in a plural society.
The ongoing review provides an opportunity to clarify the boundaries of judicial intervention in religion while reinforcing constitutional values. The final outcome will shape the future of religious freedom, gender justice, and constitutional interpretation in India.
Mains
Q. What is the doctrine of essential religious practices? How has the Supreme Court interpreted it in balancing fundamental rights? (250 words)
CARE MCQ
Q.Regarding the constitutional provisions of India, which of the following best describes the scope of Article 26 concerning the management of religious affairs in temples?
(a) It grants the State the power to regulate all activities of religious denominations without limitation
(b) It allows every religious denomination to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, subject to public order, morality, and health
(c) It mandates that temples must be managed only by State-appointed committees
(d) It restricts property ownership of religious denominations to State-granted assets
Ans: (b)
Explanation:
Article 26 guarantees collective religious freedom to denominations, including the right to establish institutions, manage religious affairs, and own property, subject to public order, morality, and health. While the State can regulate secular aspects like administration and finances to prevent misuse, it cannot interfere in essential religious practices, preserving autonomy within a secular constitutional framework.
Q.Consider the following statements regarding the Right to Freedom of Religion under the Indian Constitution:
- Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion to all persons.
- The right to manage religious affairs under Article 26 is absolute.
- No person can be compelled to pay taxes for promotion of any particular religion.
- Religious instruction is prohibited in institutions wholly funded by the State.
How many of the above statements are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only three
(c) All four
(d) None
Ans: (b)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Article 25 grants freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion to all persons, including non-citizens, subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Article 26 rights are not absolute; they are subject to public order, morality, and health, allowing limited state intervention.
Statement 3 is correct: Article 27 ensures that no person is compelled to pay taxes for promotion or maintenance of any specific religion, reinforcing secularism.
Statement 4 is correct: Article 28(1) prohibits religious instruction in institutions wholly funded by the State, though exceptions exist for institutions established under endowments.
Q. Consider the following statements regarding the legal framework of public protests in India:
Statement 1: The Supreme Court held that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used to suppress legitimate exercise of the right to protest.
Statement 2: The Court emphasized that restrictions must be based on material facts indicating an imminent threat, not mere apprehension.
Which one of the following is correct?
(a) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct and Statement 2 is the correct explanation for Statement 1
(b) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct but Statement 2 is not the correct explanation
(c) Statement 1 is correct but Statement 2 is incorrect
(d) Statement 1 is incorrect but Statement 2 is correct
Ans: (a)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The Supreme Court in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) clarified that Section 144 cannot be used arbitrarily to curtail peaceful protests protected under Article 19(1)(b).
Statement 2 is correct: The Court held that restrictions must be based on objective material facts showing imminent danger, ensuring compliance with the reasonableness test under Article 19(3).
Statement 2 correctly explains Statement 1, as it provides the constitutional basis limiting misuse of Section 144, thereby safeguarding democratic dissent.
Q.Regarding the doctrine of ‘Judicial Review’ in the context of the Indian Constitution, consider the following:
(a) It is explicitly defined under Article 13 of the Constitution
(b) The scope of judicial review in India is identical to that of the United States due to the ‘due process of law’ principle
(c) Judicial review applies only to laws made by Parliament and not to State legislations
(d) It cannot be invoked in examining the constitutional validity of executive actions
Ans: (a)
Explanation:
Article 13 provides the constitutional basis of judicial review by declaring that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void. Although not exhaustively defined in a single provision, judicial review is derived from Articles 13, 32, and 226. India follows “procedure established by law”, making its scope narrower than the U.S. “due process” doctrine. Judicial review applies to both legislative and executive actions.
FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)
Q1. Does the Indian Constitution define how a State capital is determined?
No, the Constitution does not explicitly provide a procedure for determining a state capital. It is decided through laws and executive policy, often backed by parliamentary legislation.
Q2. Why was a parliamentary amendment required for Amaravati?
Because the capital issue was originally governed by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, any change required an amendment by Parliament under Article 3 framework.
Q3. What is the significance of granting legal status to Amaravati?
Legal recognition removes ambiguity and provides administrative certainty, policy stability, and constitutional validity. It ensures that the capital location cannot be easily altered by future governments without legislative intervention.
Q4. What is meant by retrospective effect in the Amendment Act, 2026?
The Act is effective from June 2, 2024, the date when Hyderabad ceased to be the joint capital. This ensures continuity in the legal framework and avoids any constitutional or administrative gap.
