Supreme Court Deliberates Constitutional Questions, Not Sabarimala Verdict Review
India's Supreme Court, through a nine-judge Constitution Bench, is currently hearing arguments on broader constitutional questions pertaining to religious freedom, not a direct review of its 2018 Sabarimala verdict. The hearings clarify the scope of religious rights versus other fundamental rights, stemming from the Sabarimala temple entry issue.
Key Highlights
- Nine-judge bench is considering overarching constitutional questions.
- Court clarified it's not reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala judgment's merits.
- Focus is on religious freedom, Articles 25 and 26 interplay with Article 14.
- Solicitor General argued against applying 'untouchability' to Sabarimala ban.
- Union government seeks re-evaluation of 'essential religious practice' doctrine.
- Hearings include other faith-based gender discrimination cases.
The Supreme Court of India is currently seized of a crucial matter concerning the interplay of religious freedom and other fundamental rights, with a nine-judge Constitution Bench commencing final hearings on April 7, 2026. This bench has clarified that its mandate is to deliberate on overarching constitutional questions referred to it, rather than directly reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala judgment that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Ayyappan temple in Kerala.
The saga began on September 28, 2018, when a five-judge Constitution Bench, in a 4:1 majority decision, lifted the centuries-old ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple. The court ruled that the practice violated Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), and 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution, stating that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination and religious practices must conform to constitutional morality. The bench also held that Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26.
Following widespread protests and numerous review petitions filed against the 2018 verdict, a different five-judge bench, led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, decided on November 14, 2019, to keep the review petitions pending. By a 3:2 majority, this bench referred broader constitutional questions to a larger bench, initially suggesting a seven-judge bench. This decision stemmed from the recognition that the issues raised were not confined to Sabarimala alone but had implications for other cases concerning religious practices across different faiths in India.
These interconnected cases include matters related to Muslim women's entry into mosques and dargahs, Parsi women's right to enter fire temples after marrying outside their community, and the validity of female genital mutilation within the Dawoodi Bohra community. The majority opinion in 2019 emphasized the need for a 'judicial policy' to authoritatively settle recurring issues touching upon rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
In February 2020, a nine-judge bench upheld the maintainability of this reference, and on May 11, 2020, published a detailed judgment substantiating this finding. Now, on April 7, 2026, the nine-judge bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and including Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, has commenced substantive arguments.
The court has explicitly stated that it is not re-examining the merits of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment itself. Instead, the focus is on clarifying seminal constitutional questions, such as the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25, the interplay between individual rights (Article 25) and the rights of religious denominations (Article 26), and whether denominational rights are subject to other fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution, particularly Article 14.
During the initial arguments on April 7, 2026, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, contended that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment was 'wrongly decided' and needs to be reconsidered. He argued that the ban on women's entry was specific to a particular age group and the unique nature of the deity, not akin to untouchability. Mehta also raised questions about the 'essential religious practice' (ERP) doctrine, suggesting that courts may not be the appropriate forum to determine the essentiality of religious practices, which are rooted in faith and belief.
Conversely, original petitioners argue against revisiting the 2018 judgment, advocating for the upholding of individual rights and constitutional values over traditional religious practices that discriminate. The Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the Sabarimala temple, has also submitted that the court should respect community beliefs and not impose external judicial standards on religious practices.
The outcome of these hearings by the nine-judge bench will have far-reaching implications, not just for the Sabarimala temple but for the interpretation of religious freedom, the scope of judicial intervention in religious matters, and the balance between individual rights and collective denominational autonomy across India. The rigorous hearing schedule is set to continue over several weeks in April 2026, with parties presenting their arguments and rejoinders.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of the Supreme Court's current hearings regarding Sabarimala?
The Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution Bench is primarily focused on deliberating broader constitutional questions related to religious freedom, the interplay between individual rights and religious denominational rights, and the scope of judicial intervention in religious matters, rather than directly reviewing the merits of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.
What was the 2018 Sabarimala verdict?
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Ayyappan temple, striking down the traditional ban on women aged 10 to 50. The court held that the ban violated constitutional principles of equality and religious freedom.
Why was the Sabarimala case referred to a larger bench?
In November 2019, a five-judge review bench, while keeping the review petitions against the 2018 verdict pending, referred several overarching constitutional questions to a larger bench. This was because the issues raised were not unique to Sabarimala but had wider implications for religious practices across various faiths in India, requiring a comprehensive judicial policy.
What are some of the key constitutional questions being examined by the nine-judge bench?
The key questions include the scope of the right to freedom of religion (Article 25), its interaction with the rights of religious denominations (Article 26), and whether these rights are subordinate to other fundamental rights like equality (Article 14). The bench is also examining the 'essential religious practice' doctrine and the extent of judicial scrutiny over such practices.
What is the Union government's stance in the current hearings?
The Union government, represented by the Solicitor General, has argued that the 2018 Sabarimala judgment was 'wrongly decided' and should be reconsidered. It has questioned the court's role in determining 'essential religious practices' and opposed equating the Sabarimala age-old restriction with untouchability.
