Current Affairs Topics Quiz Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

'Not good for Hinduism': Supreme Court flags risks of sect-based temple restrictions during Sabarimala hearing

April 09, 2026 5 min read Environment & Ecology International Relations GS Paper 2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court began hearing (from April 7, 2026) the reference arising from review petitions against the landmark 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which had held the ban on women aged 10–50 from entering the temple unconstitutional.
  • During the hearing, the bench expressed concern that sect-based or denomination-based restrictions on temple entry could fragment Hinduism and harm it socially and institutionally — with judges noting such exclusions might "divide society" and hurt the religion itself.
  • The Centre (through the Solicitor General) argued that secular courts lack the scholarly competence to determine whether a religious practice qualifies as a superstition or an essential religious practice, and that temple traditions linked to the nature of the deity should not be subject to judicial review.
  • The nine-judge bench has expanded the reference beyond Sabarimala to include Muslim women's entry into mosques, Parsi women married outside the faith being denied entry to agiaries (fire temples), and the Dawoodi Bohra community's excommunication (kala pani) practices.

Static Topic Bridges

Articles 25 and 26 — Right to Freedom of Religion

Articles 25–28 of the Constitution guarantee religious freedom as a fundamental right under Part III. Article 25(1) gives every person the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and other Part III rights. Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, establish religious institutions, and administer property — also subject to public order, morality, and health.

  • Article 25(2)(b) specifically empowers the State to make laws "providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus." This is the provision under which state action to open temples has been justified.
  • "Sections of Hindus" in Article 25(2)(b) is a phrase whose meaning and extent is one of the seven specific constitutional questions referred to the nine-judge bench.
  • Article 26 rights belong to a "religious denomination" — a distinct body with a common faith, organisation, and a name. The 2018 majority held that Sabarimala devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination.
  • Individual rights under Article 25 and denominational rights under Article 26 can come into tension; the nine-judge bench must determine how these are to be balanced.

Connection to this news: The bench's concern about sect-based restrictions relates directly to Article 26 — whether denominations can validly exclude members of the same religion from temples, and whether such exclusion constitutes a protected "matter of religion" or infringes on individual Article 25 rights of other worshippers.

The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test

The Essential Religious Practices test is a judicially-evolved doctrine used by courts to determine whether a claimed religious practice is so fundamental to a religion that protecting it falls within the scope of Article 25 or Article 26. The test was first articulated in the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar case (1954) and has been applied extensively in subsequent cases. Courts ask whether the practice is "essential" or "integral" to the religion — without which the religion would be fundamentally altered.

  • The 2018 Sabarimala 4:1 majority (Justice D Y Chandrachud's concurrence explicitly) held that the exclusion of women was NOT an essential religious practice of Sabarimala, and thus not protected under Articles 25–26.
  • The lone dissent (Justice Indu Malhotra) argued that the court should not determine theological questions — that internal matters of a religious denomination are outside the scope of judicial review.
  • The Centre's argument before the 9-judge bench in April 2026 revives the dissenting position: secular courts should defer to religious tradition and lack theological competence to adjudicate ERP questions.
  • One of the key issues before the nine-judge bench is whether the ERP test itself is constitutionally sound or should be replaced or refined, and whether "constitutional morality" (a broader standard articulated by Justice Chandrachud in 2018) should govern the interpretation of Articles 25–26.

Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench has been specifically asked to revisit and potentially redefine the ERP test — the outcome will determine whether courts in the future can scrutinise religious exclusions (by gender, sect, caste, or community) or whether religious denominations have near-absolute autonomy over internal practices.

Religious Denominations and the State's Reform Power

The Constitution's framers included Article 25(2)(b) deliberately, recognising India's history of untouchability and caste-based exclusion from temples and public religious spaces. The social reform mandate was intended to allow the State to open temples to all Hindus regardless of caste or sect. This power has been used by various state governments — notably Tamil Nadu and Kerala — to enact legislation for temple administration and entry.

  • The Sabarimala temple is in Kerala, governed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (a statutory body), which makes it a "Hindu religious institution of a public character" within the meaning of Article 25(2)(b).
  • Privately-managed temples run by trusts or individuals may have a stronger claim under Article 26 to set entry conditions, compared to state-controlled temples.
  • The concept of "constitutional morality" (vs. "popular morality") was central to the 2018 majority — courts must uphold constitutional values even where the majority population holds opposing religious views.
  • The nine-judge bench is chaired by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices B V Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale, and Joymalya Bagchi.

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court's observation that sect-based exclusions could "harm Hinduism" reflects an application of the constitutional morality framework — the bench is signalling concern that intra-Hindu fragmentation through denomination-based temple exclusions conflicts with both the letter of Article 25(2)(b) and the broader constitutional vision of social reform.

Key Facts & Data

  • The 2018 Sabarimala judgment: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala — 4:1 majority, held exclusion of women (10–50 years) unconstitutional.
  • Nine-judge Constitution Bench constituted following the 2019 review petition reference; began substantive hearing on April 7, 2026.
  • Seven constitutional questions referred to the bench, including: scope of Article 25; interplay of Articles 25 and 26; meaning of "morality" in Articles 25–26; whether it includes constitutional morality; scope of judicial review over religious practices; meaning of "sections of Hindus" under Article 25(2)(b); and whether outsiders can challenge a denomination's practices via PIL.
  • The reference has been expanded beyond Sabarimala to four distinct communities: Hindu temple entry (Sabarimala), Muslim women's mosque entry, Parsi women's agiary entry, and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication.
  • Travancore Devaswom Board administers Sabarimala and over 1,200 temples in Kerala under state law.
  • Lord Ayyappa is believed to be a "Naishtika Brahmachari" (eternal celibate) — the theological basis for the traditional restriction on women of menstruating age.