Supreme Court hears Sabarimala review, examines religious rights scope

The Supreme Court of India is currently engaged in the tenth day of hearings concerning a significant constitutional reference stemming from the Sabarimala temple case. This pivotal case, which previously saw a five-judge bench rule in 2018 to allow women of all ages entry into the Sabarimala shrine, has now been placed before a nine-judge bench to address broader questions of religious freedom and practices in India [4, 11]. The court is not merely revisiting the Sabarimala decision but is using this reference to explore seven critical legal questions that have far-reaching implications for various religious communities across the nation [4]. The hearings, which commenced on April 7, 2026, have seen extensive arguments from various parties, including the petitioners advocating for the review of the 2018 judgment, the respondents supporting it, and intervenors presenting diverse perspectives. The proceedings have touched upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, which deal with freedom of conscience, profession, practice, and propagation of religion [7]. A key area of discussion has been the scope and extent of judicial review concerning religious practices, particularly the 'essential religious practices' (ERP) test. The Solicitor General, representing the Union government, has questioned the judiciary's role in determining what constitutes an essential religious practice, suggesting that such matters should have greater freedom [6]. Conversely, legal experts like Senior Advocate Indira Jaising have argued that constitutional morality and the right to equality (Article 15) must supersede religious customs that lead to discrimination, emphasizing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land [4, 11]. Jaising also highlighted that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment has not been stayed and remains in effect, underscoring the gravity of the current proceedings [4]. The nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, has been diligently dissecting complex arguments. They are grappling with issues such as whether religious denominations can exclude individuals based on custom, the definition of 'religious denomination' in the Indian context, and the balance between individual religious freedom and the state's power to legislate for social reform (Article 25(2)(b)) [13]. During Day 10, the court began hearing arguments from the respondents after the review petitioners concluded theirs over nine days [6]. The bench has also raised pertinent questions, such as how a non-believer from outside a particular religious tradition can claim a right of entry into a place of worship like Sabarimala, emphasizing the need to examine who is claiming the right—a devotee or a non-devotee [11]. The judges have also noted that while religious reform is permissible, it cannot hollow out the essence of religion itself, and matters of belief and conscience should not be subjected to extensive judicial debate [13]. The reference has been broadened beyond the specific issue of women's entry into the Sabarimala temple to encompass similar questions of religious discrimination and gender equality affecting other faiths, including Muslim women's entry into mosques and the rights of Parsi women. This expansion underscores the court's intent to provide a comprehensive ruling on religious freedom in India [13]. The Supreme Court's engagement with these profound questions signals a landmark moment in Indian constitutional and religious jurisprudence, aiming to define the boundaries of religious freedom and equality in a diverse society [4, 13].

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest