Supreme Court to Review Sabarimala Temple Entry Case in April
Supreme Court's 9-judge bench to review Sabarimala temple entry case from April 7, 2026.
The Supreme Court has scheduled review and writ petitions regarding the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala for hearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench from April 7, 2026. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noted that the maintainability of the review petitions had already been decided by a previous nine-judge bench in 2019. The hearings were previously aborted due to the COVID pandemic.
The court outlined a timeline for the hearing, with review petitioners presenting their arguments from April 7-9, opponents from April 14-16, rejoinder submissions on April 21, and concluding submissions on April 22. A 2019 judgment had referred the Sabarimala review and writ petitions to a seven-judge Bench and had also clubbed similar petitions concerning religious practices, including the right of Muslim women to enter mosques and female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, with the Sabarimala case.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court will review the Sabarimala temple entry case.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench will hear the case.
Hearings are scheduled to begin on April 7, 2026.
The case involves review and writ petitions challenging a 2018 judgment.
The 2018 judgment allowed women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala temple.
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Social Justice, Constitution, Polity
Connects to fundamental rights, secularism, judicial review
Statement-based MCQs on constitutional provisions, analytical mains questions on balancing rights
In Simple Words
The Supreme Court is revisiting the Sabarimala temple case. This case is about whether women of a certain age should be allowed to enter the temple. The court wants to ensure everyone's rights are respected.
India Angle
In India, religion is a big part of life. Temples like Sabarimala have traditions that some people want to keep, while others want to change to be more fair to everyone.
For Instance
Think of it like a neighborhood rule about who can use the community hall. Some might say only men can use it, but others might argue that women should have equal access.
This case matters because it affects how religion and equality work together in India. It impacts what rights everyone has, regardless of gender or beliefs.
Balancing tradition and equality: the heart of the Sabarimala case.
Visual Insights
Sabarimala Case: Key Events
Timeline of the Sabarimala temple entry case, highlighting key judgments and developments leading to the current review.
The Sabarimala case has been a contentious issue, raising questions about religious freedom, gender equality, and the role of the judiciary in interpreting religious practices.
- 2018Supreme Court allows women of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple, sparking protests.
- 2019Supreme Court refers Sabarimala review petitions and other similar cases to a larger bench.
- 2020-2025Hearings aborted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- 2026Supreme Court schedules review and writ petitions for hearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench from April 7.
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
In recent years, there have been ongoing debates and discussions regarding the implementation of the 2018 Supreme Court verdict. While the court initially lifted the ban, the actual entry of women into the Sabarimala temple has faced resistance and challenges. Various groups have expressed differing opinions on the matter, leading to social and political tensions.
The Kerala government has attempted to facilitate the entry of women while ensuring law and order. However, the issue remains sensitive, with concerns raised about the potential for unrest and the need to respect religious sentiments. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the review petitions in 2026 indicates a continued effort to address the legal and constitutional questions surrounding the case.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court's ruling on the review petitions could have significant implications for the interpretation of religious freedom and gender equality in India. The outcome may also influence similar cases involving religious practices and constitutional rights. The hearings scheduled for April 2026 will be closely watched by various stakeholders, including religious organizations, women's rights activists, and legal experts.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the Sabarimala temple case about, and why is it important for UPSC aspirants?
The Sabarimala temple case concerns the entry of women of menstruating age (10-50 years) into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. It is important for UPSC aspirants because it raises questions about the conflict between religious traditions, gender equality, and constitutional rights, all relevant to the Social Issues section of the syllabus.
2. What are the key facts about the Sabarimala case that are important for UPSC Prelims?
Key facts include the Supreme Court's review of the 2018 judgment, the involvement of a nine-judge Constitution Bench, the commencement of hearings on April 7, 2026, and the central issue of women's entry into the Sabarimala temple. Remember the year of the initial judgement (2018) and the number of judges on the bench (9).
Exam Tip
Focus on the timeline of events and the constitutional articles involved.
3. Explain the 'Essential Religious Practices Doctrine' in the context of the Sabarimala case.
The Essential Religious Practices Doctrine is used to determine which religious practices are protected under the Constitution. In the Sabarimala case, the court has to decide whether the ban on women's entry is an essential and integral part of the Hindu religion, thus deserving protection, or whether it is discriminatory and violates fundamental rights.
4. What are the arguments for and against allowing women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple?
Arguments in favor emphasize gender equality and the right to worship, citing Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Arguments against often invoke religious traditions, the deity's celibate nature, and the protection of essential religious practices.
5. How does the Sabarimala case highlight the tension between Constitutional Morality and Popular Morality?
The Sabarimala case exemplifies the conflict between Constitutional Morality (adherence to constitutional values like equality and non-discrimination) and Popular Morality (beliefs and practices widely accepted by society). The court's decision to allow women's entry reflects Constitutional Morality, while resistance to the decision reflects Popular Morality.
6. What is the significance of the nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala review case?
A nine-judge bench is constituted in cases involving substantial questions of law pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution. The involvement of such a large bench indicates the complexity and importance of the issues at stake in the Sabarimala case.
7. What are the recent developments regarding the Sabarimala temple entry case?
The Supreme Court has scheduled review and writ petitions for hearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench from April 7, 2026. These hearings were previously delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
8. How might the Sabarimala case impact common citizens?
The Sabarimala case can impact common citizens by influencing the broader discourse on gender equality, religious freedom, and the role of the judiciary in adjudicating social issues. The final verdict could set a precedent for similar cases involving religious practices and women's rights.
9. What is the timeline for the upcoming hearings in the Sabarimala review case?
Review petitioners will present arguments from April 7-9, opponents from April 14-16, rejoinder submissions on April 21, and concluding submissions on April 22, 2026.
10. Why is the Sabarimala temple entry case in the news recently?
The case is in the news because the Supreme Court has scheduled the review and writ petitions for hearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench starting April 7, 2026, after previous delays due to the pandemic.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Sabarimala Temple case: 1. The Supreme Court has scheduled review and writ petitions for hearing in April 2026. 2. The review petitions will be heard by a seven-judge Constitution Bench. 3. The case involves the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: C
Statement 1 is CORRECT: The Supreme Court has scheduled the review and writ petitions for hearing from April 7, 2026. Statement 2 is INCORRECT: The review petitions will be heard by a nine-judge Constitution Bench, not a seven-judge bench. Statement 3 is CORRECT: The case concerns the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
2. Which of the following fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution are most directly relevant to the Sabarimala Temple entry case? 1. Article 14: Equality before law. 2. Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. 3. Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is CORRECT: Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, which is relevant to the argument that the ban on women's entry is discriminatory. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, which is relevant to the argument that the ban is essential to the religious practice of the temple. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: Article 29 protects the interests of minorities, which is not directly relevant to this case.
3. The Supreme Court has clubbed the Sabarimala review petitions with similar petitions concerning which of the following religious practices? 1. Right of Muslim women to enter mosques. 2. Female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community. 3. Restrictions on Parsi women marrying outside the community. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is CORRECT: The Supreme Court has clubbed the Sabarimala review petitions with petitions concerning the right of Muslim women to enter mosques. Statement 2 is CORRECT: The Supreme Court has also clubbed the petitions with those concerning female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: While restrictions on Parsi women marrying outside the community are a related social issue, they are not explicitly mentioned as being clubbed with the Sabarimala case in the provided summary.
Related Articles
NCERT Textbook Revisions Spark Controversy: Key Changes and Concerns
High Court halts 'Kerala Story 2' release, asks CBFC review
Kerala Inaugurates Ayurveda Research Institute, Seeks Global Recognition
Telangana Government Plans Elaborate Iftar Dinner Events in Hyderabad
Women's Stories from Northeast India: Conflict, Resilience, and Identity
Source Articles
Sabarimala women entry: Supreme Court’s 9-judge Constitution Bench to begin review hearing from April 7 - The Hindu
LDF, UDF poised to draw battle lines over Sabarimala women’s entry issue - The Hindu
Sabarimala women’s entry: Kerala Law Minister says govt to seek ‘balance’ between religious practices, constitutional rights ahead of SC hearing - The Hindu
Satheesan calls for revised affidavit on women’s entry to Sabarimala - The Hindu
SC allows entry of women of all ages to worship at Sabarimala, other places of their choice - The Hindu