Supreme Court Forms 9-Judge Bench for Sabarimala Review
A nine-judge Supreme Court bench will re-examine the contentious issue of women's entry into the Sabarimala temple and related legal questions.
Photo by Ankit Sharma
Quick Revision
The Supreme Court has formed a nine-judge Constitution Bench to review the Sabarimala case.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant heads this bench.
Hearings are scheduled to begin on April 7.
The bench will re-examine the 2018 verdict that allowed women of all ages into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple.
Broader constitutional questions regarding judicial intervention in religious practices will be addressed.
The case also includes similar issues from other faiths, such as Muslim women's entry into mosques and Parsi women's rights.
An earlier nine-judge bench was constituted in 2019 but proceedings were halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court aims to conclude the case by the end of April.
Key Dates
Key Numbers
Mains & Interview Focus
Don't miss it!
The Supreme Court's decision to constitute a nine-judge bench for the Sabarimala review underscores the profound constitutional dilemma at its heart. This is not merely about a single temple; it concerns the very contours of religious freedom, gender equality, and the judiciary's role in defining "essential religious practices." The initial five-judge bench verdict, which permitted women of all ages to enter the temple, ignited a fierce debate, revealing deep societal divisions.
A larger bench is imperative to settle the jurisprudential ambiguity surrounding the essential religious practice doctrine. This doctrine, originating from the 1954 Shirur Mutt case, has often been criticized for requiring courts to delve into theological matters, a task ill-suited for judicial bodies. The court must clarify whether it should determine the essentiality of a practice or if that domain belongs solely to religious denominations, subject only to public order, morality, and health.
The case forces a direct confrontation between Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (equality before law), particularly Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex). While religious freedom is a fundamental right, it cannot be absolute, especially when it infringes upon the dignity and equality of individuals. The court's challenge lies in crafting a nuanced interpretation that respects religious autonomy without sanctioning discriminatory practices.
Furthermore, clubbing the Sabarimala review with similar issues concerning other faiths—such as Muslim women's entry into mosques or Parsi women's rights—broadens the scope significantly. This move signals the court's intent to establish a uniform constitutional principle governing judicial intervention in religious matters across all communities. Such an overarching pronouncement could set a critical precedent for future cases involving religious personal laws and practices.
This exercise is a test of constitutional morality and the Supreme Court's commitment to its role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. The outcome will not only impact religious institutions but also shape the discourse on secularism and individual rights in India. A clear, principled stance is essential to provide certainty and uphold the foundational values of the republic.
Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity & Governance - Constitutional provisions related to fundamental rights, judicial pronouncements, and their impact on societal practices.
GS Paper I: Society - Impact of judicial decisions on religious practices and social reform movements.
Current Affairs: Significant Supreme Court judgments and ongoing legal debates on religious freedom and gender equality.
View Detailed Summary
Summary
The Supreme Court is re-examining its decision that allowed women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple. A larger group of nine judges will decide if religious traditions can exclude women, and how much courts can interfere in religious matters. This decision will affect similar issues in other religions too.
The Supreme Court has formally notified the constitution of a nine-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, to commence hearing the long-pending Sabarimala temple review case from April 7, 2026. This bench will re-examine the 2018 verdict that allowed women of all ages into the Kerala temple. The hearing, scheduled to conclude by April 22, 2026, will address seven sweeping constitutional questions, including the interplay between freedom of religion (Articles 25 and 26), the meaning of "constitutional morality," the extent of judicial inquiry into religious practices, the definition of "sections of Hindus," and the protection of "essential religious practices" under Article 26.
The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, supports the review petitions, opposing the 2018 ruling. The bench also includes Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale, and Joymalya Bagchi. This adjudication is significant as it anchors a broader cluster of matters raising overlapping questions about judicial scrutiny in religious affairs, including the 39-year-old Dawoodi Bohra excommunication case and the religious rights of Parsi women marrying outside their community.
This case is crucial for UPSC exams, particularly GS Paper II (Polity & Governance), due to its implications for religious freedom, equality, and judicial power under the Constitution.
Background
The Sabarimala temple controversy centers on the traditional practice of barring women of menstruating age (typically 10-50 years) from entering the shrine. This practice was challenged in court, leading to a landmark 2018 Supreme Court judgment that declared the restriction unconstitutional, citing gender equality and non-discrimination.
The 2018 verdict, by a 4:1 majority, held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination and thus could not claim the protection of Article 26. It also concluded that the exclusion of women violated Article 25, and Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, was declared ultra vires. This decision sparked widespread protests and review petitions.
Subsequently, a 2019 order by a five-judge Constitution Bench referred broader constitutional questions arising from the review petitions to a larger bench, acknowledging that the issues extended beyond Sabarimala to encompass fundamental rights concerning religious freedom and equality across various faiths in India.
Latest Developments
The Supreme Court has now constituted a nine-judge Constitution Bench to hear the Sabarimala review petitions and related matters. Hearings are scheduled from April 7 to April 22, 2026. The bench will examine seven key constitutional questions, including the scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26, the definition of "essential religious practices," and the extent of judicial review over religious customs.
The Union government supports the review petitions, arguing against the unrestricted entry of women of all ages. The case has been clubbed with other matters raising similar questions, such as the Dawoodi Bohra community's practice of excommunication and the rights of Parsi women marrying outside their faith. The Travancore Devaswom Board has submitted that the restriction is an ancient and essential custom linked to the deity's "Naishtika Brahmacharya" character.
The court's decision to refer these issues to a larger bench signifies an attempt to provide a comprehensive interpretation of religious freedom and equality in the Indian constitutional framework, potentially reshaping how courts handle conflicts between fundamental rights and religious practices.
Sources & Further Reading
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the recent Supreme Court notification for the Sabarimala review case:
- A.A nine-judge bench, headed by CJI Surya Kant, will hear the case starting April 7, 2026.
- B.The hearing will exclusively focus on the 2018 Sabarimala verdict and will not include other religious freedom issues.
- C.The Union government has opposed the review petitions, supporting the 2018 verdict.
- D.The case was referred to a larger bench in 2018 itself.
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement A is CORRECT. The Supreme Court has notified a nine-judge bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, to hear the Sabarimala review case starting April 7, 2026. Statement B is INCORRECT because the hearing will address a broader cluster of matters raising overlapping questions about judicial scrutiny in religious affairs, including cases concerning the Dawoodi Bohra community and Parsi women's religious rights. Statement C is INCORRECT; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, has submitted that the Centre supports the review petitions, effectively opposing the 2018 ruling. Statement D is INCORRECT; the reference to a larger bench for broader constitutional questions occurred in 2019, not 2018.
2. The Supreme Court's reference of the Sabarimala review to a nine-judge bench aims to address several constitutional questions. Which of the following is NOT among the key questions framed by the court?
- A.The extent to which courts can inquire into particular religious practices.
- B.The definition and scope of "constitutional morality" in interpreting religious freedom.
- C.The permissible extent of judicial recognition of PILs challenging religious practices at the instance of persons who do not belong to the concerned denomination.
- D.The specific economic impact of religious tourism on the state of Kerala.
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement D is INCORRECT. The economic impact of religious tourism on Kerala is not among the seven sweeping constitutional questions framed by the court for adjudication in the Sabarimala review. Statements A, B, and C are CORRECT as they directly reflect the constitutional questions identified by the court, as mentioned in the sources, concerning the interplay between religious freedom, judicial review, and the rights of individuals and denominations.
3. In the context of the Sabarimala case and the broader religious freedom debates, consider the following statements:
- A.Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
- B.Article 26 of the Indian Constitution grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
- C.The "essential religious practices" doctrine, often invoked in such cases, allows courts to interfere in any religious custom deemed discriminatory.
- D.The 2018 Sabarimala verdict was delivered by a three-judge bench.
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement A is CORRECT. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. Statement B is CORRECT. Article 26 allows religious denominations to manage their religious affairs, subject to public order, morality, and health. Statement C is INCORRECT. The "essential religious practices" doctrine is complex and does not automatically allow courts to interfere in any religious custom deemed discriminatory; its application is debated and depends on specific interpretations of what constitutes an essential practice. Statement D is INCORRECT. The 2018 Sabarimala verdict was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench (by a 4:1 majority), not a three-judge bench.
Source Articles
Supreme Court notifies nine-judge Bench for Sabarimala verdict review - The Hindu
Sabarimala women entry: Supreme Court’s 9-judge Constitution Bench to begin review hearing from April 7 - The Hindu
Freedom to pray: on Sabarimala verdict - The Hindu
Sabarimala review sent to a larger Bench by 3:2 majority judgment | live - The Hindu
Sabarimala case: Supreme Court upholds referring religious questions to larger Bench, frames 7 questions of law - The Hindu
About the Author
Ritu SinghGovernance & Constitutional Affairs Analyst
Ritu Singh writes about Polity & Governance at GKSolver, breaking down complex developments into clear, exam-relevant analysis.
View all articles →