Daily Mains Question – GS 2 – 4th August 2025
- TPP
- Aug 4
- 3 min read
Welcome to your daily UPSC Mains Answer Practice! Today’s question explores the doctrine of Harmonious Construction and its critical role in maintaining the constitutional balance between religious freedoms and other fundamental rights in India. Rooted in constitutional interpretation, this principle is frequently employed by the Supreme Court to reconcile apparent conflicts between Articles 25–28 (religious rights) and other provisions like equality (Articles 14–15) and life and liberty (Article 21). Through landmark judgments such as the Sabarimala, Shayara Bano, and Venkataramana Devaru cases, the Court has upheld the secular fabric of the Constitution while ensuring that individual dignity and social reform are not compromised. This question is highly relevant for GS Paper 2 – Polity and Governance, particularly in the areas concerning fundamental rights, constitutional interpretation, and judicial activism in a pluralistic society.
Click Here to read the Monthly Current Affairs Pointers (CAP).
QUESTION
In the context of constitutional interpretation, examine how the doctrine of Harmonious Construction has enabled the judiciary to balance religious freedoms with other fundamental rights in India.
Answer: The doctrine of Harmonious Construction is a judicial principle used to resolve conflicts between constitutional provisions or statutory laws, ensuring that all parts of a statute or the Constitution are given effect without rendering any provision redundant or ineffective. Originating from cases such as CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003), the doctrine has been crucial in resolving tensions between religious freedoms (Articles 25–28) and other fundamental rights like equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and life and liberty (Article 21).
Key Judicial Applications:
Sabarimala Temple Case (2018): Article 25 (religious freedom) was harmonized with Article 14, leading to the inclusion of women of all ages into the temple, reinforcing gender justice while preserving essential religious elements.
Shayara Bano Case (2017): The Court declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional, interpreting personal religious practices in light of Articles 14, 15, and 21, thereby protecting individual dignity and equality.
Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958): Article 26 (denominational rights) was interpreted in harmony with Article 25(2)(b), allowing state laws aimed at social reform to restrict religious institutions from excluding certain classes.
Azaan Loudspeaker Case (Calcutta HC, 1998): The right to religious expression was balanced against Article 21 (right to sleep), allowing the call to prayer but regulating the use of loudspeakers during early hours.
Challenges in Harmonization:
Essential Religious Practices Test (ERP): Courts often face difficulty in determining what constitutes an "essential" religious practice, leading to subjective or inconsistent rulings.
Inconsistent Interpretations: In cases like Goolrokh Gupta v. Gujarat HC, differing interpretations of equality for Parsi women marrying outside the community highlighted judicial inconsistency in applying Article 14.
The Supreme Court’s application of the doctrine of Harmonious Construction reflects an evolving constitutional morality that seeks to uphold both religious freedoms and individual rights. While it ensures the co-existence of plural values, concerns about judicial subjectivity and uniform standards demand institutional clarity and refined jurisprudence. Ultimately, the doctrine strengthens India’s secular and democratic fabric by balancing rights without prioritizing one at the expense of another.
Previous Daily UPSC Mains Question
Click for Daily Current Affairs Summary
Click for Daily Prelims MCQs
Click for NCERTs Pdfs
Click for Daily Quotes
Stay updated with the latest news by joining our Telegram channel – The PRESS Pad , and follow us on Instagram and X
Comments