17 Feb 2026·Source: The Indian Express

4 min

Polity & GovernanceSocial IssuesNEWS

Supreme Court to Hear Sabarimala Temple Entry Case in April

A nine-judge bench will hear the Sabarimala temple entry case in April.

The Supreme Court has said that a nine-judge bench will hear the matter related to women's entry into the Sabarimala temple in April. The bench will consider the larger constitutional questions related to religious discrimination and the conflict between religious freedom and gender equality.

The case stems from the 2018 Supreme Court verdict that lifted the ban on women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple. This decision led to widespread protests and the filing of review petitions.

Key Facts

The Supreme Court will hear the Sabarimala temple entry case in April.

A nine-judge bench will consider the matter.

The case involves questions of religious discrimination and gender equality.

The case stems from the 2018 Supreme Court verdict that lifted the ban on women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple.

UPSC Exam Angles

GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Fundamental Rights, Secularism, Judicial Review

Connects to syllabus topics of Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 15, 25, 26), Secularism, and the role of the Judiciary

Potential question types: Statement-based MCQs on constitutional provisions, analytical questions on balancing fundamental rights

In Simple Words

The Supreme Court is looking into whether women should be allowed to enter the Sabarimala temple. Some people say it's their religious right to keep women out, while others argue that it's unfair to exclude women based on their age.

India Angle

In India, religion is a big deal, and temples have different rules. This case is about balancing old traditions with modern ideas of equality.

For Instance

It's like if a housing society says only men can use the swimming pool. Is that fair to women who live there?

This affects everyone because it's about whether religious rules can override basic rights like equality for all.

Equality and tradition: Can they coexist in India's temples?

Visual Insights

Sabarimala Temple Entry Case: Key Events

Timeline of key events leading up to the Supreme Court hearing in April 2026.

The Sabarimala temple entry case has been a long-standing issue, involving questions of religious freedom, gender equality, and constitutional rights.

2006Petition filed in Supreme Court challenging the ban on women's entry.
2018Supreme Court lifts the ban on women of menstruating age entering Sabarimala temple.
2018Widespread protests and review petitions filed against the Supreme Court verdict.
2019Supreme Court refers the review petitions to a larger bench.
2026Nine-judge bench to hear the matter related to women's entry into the Sabarimala temple in April.

More Information

Background

The Sabarimala temple case revolves around the conflict between religious freedom and gender equality, specifically concerning the entry of women of menstruating age (10-50 years) into the temple. Historically, the temple had a customary ban on women in this age group. This ban was based on the belief that menstruating women are impure, and their presence would violate the temple's sanctity. This practice was challenged in court, leading to the 2018 Supreme Court verdict. The Indian Constitution's Article 25 guarantees the freedom of religion to all individuals, but this right is subject to public order, morality, and health. Article 26 provides religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. The core issue is whether the Sabarimala temple's ban was an essential religious practice protected under these articles, or if it violated Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth). The Supreme Court's 2018 verdict attempted to balance these competing rights. The review petitions filed against the 2018 verdict raised complex questions about the scope of judicial review in religious matters and the extent to which courts can interfere with religious practices. The Supreme Court then decided to refer the matter to a larger nine-judge bench to address these broader constitutional questions related to religious discrimination and the intersection of religious freedom and gender equality.

Latest Developments

In recent years, there have been ongoing debates and discussions surrounding the implementation of the 2018 Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala. While the court lifted the ban on women of menstruating age, the actual entry of women into the temple has faced resistance and protests from various groups. The state government of Kerala has attempted to facilitate the entry of women, but this has been met with challenges and concerns about maintaining law and order. Several review petitions were filed against the 2018 verdict, leading the Supreme Court to constitute a larger bench to reconsider the matter and address the broader constitutional questions involved. This decision reflects the complexity and sensitivity of the issue, as it touches upon fundamental rights, religious freedom, and gender equality. The upcoming hearing in April signifies the court's continued engagement with this issue and its commitment to providing clarity on the legal and constitutional principles involved. Looking ahead, the nine-judge bench's decision will have significant implications for religious practices and women's rights in India. It could set a precedent for how courts handle similar cases involving conflicts between religious customs and constitutional values. The ruling is expected to provide guidance on the interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 of the Constitution, particularly in the context of religious freedom and gender equality.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the Sabarimala temple case about, and why is it important?

The Sabarimala temple case concerns the entry of women of menstruating age (10-50 years) into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Historically, the temple had a customary ban on women in this age group. The case is important because it raises questions about the conflict between religious freedom and gender equality, and the extent to which religious practices can override constitutional rights.

2. What are the key facts about the Sabarimala temple case that are important for the UPSC Prelims exam?

For the UPSC Prelims, remember that the Sabarimala temple case involves a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The case stems from a 2018 Supreme Court verdict that lifted the ban on women of menstruating age from entering the temple. The central issue is the conflict between religious freedom and gender equality.

Exam Tip

Focus on the constitutional aspects and key dates.

3. What is the 'essential religious practices' doctrine, and how does it relate to the Sabarimala case?

The 'essential religious practices' doctrine is used by courts to determine which religious practices are protected under the Constitution. In the Sabarimala case, the court is examining whether the ban on women's entry is an essential and integral part of the Hindu religion. If it is not deemed essential, the ban can be struck down as discriminatory.

4. Why is the Sabarimala temple entry case in the news recently?

The Sabarimala temple entry case is in the news because the Supreme Court has said that a nine-judge bench will hear the matter in April. The bench will consider larger constitutional questions related to religious discrimination and the conflict between religious freedom and gender equality.

5. What are the arguments for and against allowing women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple?

Arguments for allowing entry emphasize gender equality and constitutional rights. Arguments against often cite religious traditions and the belief that the deity's celibate nature is compromised by the presence of women of menstruating age. These arguments reflect differing interpretations of religious freedom and gender justice.

6. How does the Sabarimala case relate to Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution?

The Sabarimala case is directly related to Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) of the Indian Constitution. The ban on women's entry was challenged as a violation of these articles, arguing that it discriminated against women based on their sex and denied them equal access to a public place of worship.

7. What is the historical background of the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple?

Historically, the Sabarimala temple had a customary ban on women of menstruating age (10-50 years). This ban was based on the belief that menstruating women are impure, and their presence would violate the temple's sanctity. The temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, who is considered a celibate deity.

8. What are the potential implications of the Supreme Court's decision in the Sabarimala case for other religious practices in India?

The Supreme Court's decision in the Sabarimala case could set a precedent for challenging other religious practices that are seen as discriminatory. It may lead to a re-evaluation of the balance between religious freedom and gender equality in India. The ruling could influence future legal challenges to religious customs.

9. What are the recent developments in the Sabarimala temple entry case?

The Supreme Court will hear the Sabarimala temple entry case in April with a nine-judge bench. The bench will consider larger constitutional questions related to religious discrimination and the conflict between religious freedom and gender equality. This follows the 2018 verdict that lifted the ban, which faced resistance.

10. What is 'Constitutional Morality' and how is it relevant to the Sabarimala case?

Constitutional morality refers to adhering to the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution, even if they differ from popular or traditional beliefs. In the Sabarimala case, the concept of constitutional morality is used to argue that gender equality, as guaranteed by the Constitution, should take precedence over traditional religious practices that discriminate against women.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding the Sabarimala Temple case: 1. The case pertains to the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala Temple. 2. The Supreme Court's 2018 verdict lifted the ban on women of menstruating age from entering the temple. 3. The case raises questions about the conflict between religious freedom and gender equality. 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: B

Statement 1 is INCORRECT: The case specifically concerns women of menstruating age (10-50 years), not all age groups. Statement 2 is CORRECT: The 2018 Supreme Court verdict did lift the ban on women of menstruating age. Statement 3 is CORRECT: The case directly addresses the conflict between religious freedom (Article 25) and gender equality (Articles 14 and 15). Therefore, only statements 2 and 3 are correct.

2. Which of the following articles of the Indian Constitution are most directly relevant to the Sabarimala Temple entry case? 1. Article 14 2. Article 17 3. Article 25 4. Article 29 Select the correct answer using the code given below:

A.1 and 2 only
B.1 and 3 only
C.2 and 4 only
D.3 and 4 only

Show Answer

Answer: B

Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 25 (freedom of religion) are directly relevant to the Sabarimala case. Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) is not directly related, although it deals with social justice. Article 29 (protection of interests of minorities) is also not directly relevant to this specific case.

3. Assertion (A): The Supreme Court referred the Sabarimala case to a nine-judge bench. Reason (R): The case involves substantial questions of law pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution and essential religious practices. In the context of the above statements, which of the following is correct?

A.Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
B.Both A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
C.A is true but R is false
D.A is false but R is true

Show Answer

Answer: A

Both the assertion and the reason are true. The Supreme Court did refer the Sabarimala case to a nine-judge bench because the case involves substantial questions of law related to the interpretation of the Constitution, particularly concerning the balance between religious freedom and gender equality. The reason correctly explains why the case was referred to a larger bench.