Why in News
A 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, began hearing the Sabarimala review case on April 7, 2026, revisiting the 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala that allowed women aged 10-50 to enter the Sabarimala temple. The hearing schedule runs through April 21, 2026 with detailed oral submissions across multiple sessions.
The Bench
| Judge | Note |
|---|---|
| CJI Surya Kant (presiding) | Chairs the bench |
| Justice B.V. Nagarathna | Senior puisne judge |
| Justice M.M. Sundresh | — |
| Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah | — |
| Justice Aravind Kumar | — |
| Justice A.G. Masih | — |
| Justice R. Mahadevan | — |
| Justice Prasanna B. Varale | — |
| Justice Joymalya Bagchi | — |
The bench is unusually large — 9 judges rather than the standard 5 — reflecting the constitutional significance of the questions involved.
Hearing Schedule
| Dates | Phase |
|---|---|
| April 7-9 | Review petitioners’ submissions |
| April 16-17 | Opposing parties’ submissions |
| April 21 | Rejoinder by petitioners |
The 2018 Judgment — What Happened
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), a 5-judge Constitution Bench (4-1 majority) held that the age-based ban on women’s entry to Sabarimala was unconstitutional. Key findings:
| Finding | Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Ban violated Article 14 (equality) | Discrimination based on biological characteristics (menstruation) |
| Ban violated Article 25 (freedom of religion) | Women have equal religious rights as devotees |
| Ayyappa devotees not a “religious denomination” under Article 26 | Did not have separate religious identity from Hindus |
| Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules | Struck down as unconstitutional |
| Justice Indu Malhotra (sole dissent) | Courts should not interfere in religious practices essential to faith |
The Review — Why Now?
After the 2018 verdict, 65+ review petitions were filed by various groups, arguing the judgment violated:
- Religious autonomy of the Sabarimala temple
- The “essential religious practices” doctrine
- The rights of devotees as a denomination
In 2019, a 5-judge bench (3-2 majority) referred the review to a larger bench, framing 7 questions including:
- Scope of Article 25 (religious freedom)
- Definition of “religious denomination” under Article 26
- Whether courts should interfere in essential religious practices
- The relationship between Articles 25, 26, and 14
- Balance between individual rights and group rights
Now, in 2026, the 9-judge bench must answer these constitutional questions before deciding the Sabarimala-specific issue.
Constitutional Provisions at Stake
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | Right to equality before law |
| Article 15(1) | Prohibition of discrimination on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth |
| Article 17 | Abolition of untouchability |
| Article 25(1) | Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, propagation of religion |
| Article 25(2)(b) | State can regulate secular activity associated with religion; throw open Hindu institutions to all classes/sections |
| Article 26 | Right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs |
The central tension: Article 25 protects individual religious freedom; Article 26 protects denominational autonomy; Article 14 requires equal treatment regardless of gender.
The “Essential Religious Practices” Doctrine
This judicially-developed doctrine holds that constitutional protection extends only to practices that are essential and integral to the religion — not mere rituals. The Supreme Court has applied it in:
| Case | Year | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioner, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha (Shirur Mutt) | 1954 | Originated the doctrine |
| Mohd Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar | 1958 | Cow slaughter not essential to Islam |
| Acharya Jagdishwarananda v. Commissioner of Police | 2004 | Tandava dance not essential to Ananda Marga |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India | 2017 | Triple talaq not essential to Islam |
The Sabarimala review will likely reframe or clarify this doctrine.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper 2 — Polity & Governance
- Articles 14, 15, 17, 25, 26 — fundamental rights and religious freedom
- Essential Religious Practices doctrine
- Judicial review of religious practices
- Constitution Bench composition (5/7/9 judges) under Article 145(3)
- Gender equality vs religious autonomy debate
GS Paper 1 — Indian Society
- Religion and gender in Indian society
- Reform movements and tradition
Prelims Fast Facts:
- 2018 Sabarimala verdict: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
- Original bench: 5 judges (4-1 majority)
- Current review bench: 9 judges
- CJI: Surya Kant
- Sole dissenter in 2018: Justice Indu Malhotra
- Sabarimala temple location: Pathanamthitta district, Kerala
- Deity: Lord Ayyappa
Facts Corner
- Article 145(3) requires that any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution be heard by a bench of at least 5 judges. 9-judge benches are rare — used for landmark constitutional questions.
- The Indu Malhotra dissent (2018) is one of the most-cited dissenting opinions in recent Indian constitutional law — she argued that “rationality cannot be invoked to invalidate religious practices” and that courts should respect religious autonomy.
- The Sabarimala temple is one of the largest pilgrimage sites in the world — over 40-50 million devotees visit annually during the Mandala-Makaravilakku season (Nov-Jan).
- The age restriction was based on the temple’s tradition that Lord Ayyappa is a celibate deity (Naishtika Brahmachari) — women of menstruating age were considered an obstacle to this celibacy.
- The 2018 judgment could not be implemented due to mass protests in Kerala — even today, no woman in the 10-50 age group has formally entered the temple under court protection.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna is currently the senior-most woman judge on the Supreme Court — and is in line to become India’s first woman Chief Justice in September 2027.
