A devotional community’s plea to reinterpret articles 25 and 26

The Supreme Court of India is currently addressing significant constitutional questions arising from the long-pending review of its 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which had permitted women of menstruating age to enter the temple. A nine-judge Constitution Bench is set to hear arguments on these issues starting April 7, 2026. In this context, Dr. Namburi Kanakadurga, a 66-year-old scholar and representative of the Tiruppan Alwar Ammal (SC/ST) devotional community from Telangana, has filed an interlocutory application seeking to implead as a party.

Through written submissions settled by Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi and filed on March 14, 2026, she offers detailed arguments focused particularly on Question No. (iv) before the Bench: the scope and extent of “morality” under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and whether it includes “constitutional morality. ”The submissions are presented on behalf of Dr. Kanakadurga as the proposed impleader and next friend of affected Deities, emphasizing the historical and civilizational role of religious denominations in India.

The applicant dedicates these arguments to the memory of Late Dr. M. V. Soundararajan, who had earlier raised concerns related to Article 363 in connection with the Chilkur Balaji Deity following the 2018 Sabarimala verdict. Dr. Soundararajan’s final wishes, expressed shortly before his passing, highlighted the need to establish a correct interpretation of the Constitution that protects Deity interests and denominational rights, drawing inspiration from civilizational principles and the contributions of communities like the Tiruppan Alwar Ammal. Special mention needs to be made here regarding the vision and efforts of Dr. M. V. Soundararajan who passed away just a day after the IA was filed. 

The submissions emphasize the civilizational and constitutional importance of Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. The applicant portrays this provision as a global beacon for peaceful coexistence amid religious conflicts, crediting historical figures like the Kanchi Paramacharya and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar for shaping its protective framework. The community presents itself as acting in the capacity of "next friend" to various Deities, fulfilling what it terms an "Article 26 Ammal duty" to safeguard denominational autonomy, promote fraternity, ensure individual dignity, and preserve national unity and integrity.

Central to the arguments is a distinctive conception of constitutional morality (Dharma), rooted in India's civilizational ethos. The applicant invokes the ancient maxim "Dharmam Kshatrasya Kshatram" (Dharma as the ruler of rulers), asserting that moral law subordinates both the governed and those in authority. This principle, according to the submissions, finds expression in foundational constitutional documents, including the Objectives Resolution of January 22, 1947, and assurances given to religious communities around independence—such as the July 22, 1947, guarantee of the right to worship in one's own way and preserve language and culture.

The submissions link this understanding to historical practices like Thrippadidanam (dedication of sovereignty to a Deity, as in Travancore's consecration to Lord Padmanabhaswamy) and the concept of Rama Rajya—an ideal of governance guided by righteousness, epitomized by Lord Rama. The applicant highlights events such as the January 22, 2024, Pranaprathishta (consecration) ceremony at the Ram Janmabhoomi temple as symbolically fulfilling devotional and constitutional aspirations toward Dharma-centered rule. 

Drawing on Nani Palkhivala's views and the Supreme Court emblem's motto "Yato Dharmastato Jayah" (where there is Dharma, there is victory), the arguments critique the majority opinion in the original Sabarimala case for allegedly failing to apply this fuller conception of constitutional morality—contrasting it with Justice Indu Malhotra's dissent, which emphasized respect for religious autonomy.

The filing positions the intervention as a devotional and constitutional contribution toward clarifying "morality" in religious freedom jurisprudence, aiming to uphold harmony among diverse traditions while preserving the sanctity of denominational practices and Deity rights within India's plural constitutional order.

Ultimately, the submissions contend that recognizing this understanding of constitutional morality as a governing principle—operating through Article 26 read with Article 363—would require reconsideration of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, especially where denominational rights and pre-Constitutional arrangements are involved.

The applicant suggests that unresolved issues tied to such arrangements might warrant a Presidential Reference under Article 143 for authoritative clarification, ensuring fidelity to the Constitution's structural balance.

The filing positions the intervention as a devotional and constitutional contribution toward clarifying "morality" in religious freedom jurisprudence, aiming to uphold harmony among diverse traditions while preserving the sanctity of denominational practices and Deity rights within India's plural constitutional order.