What Happened
- The Supreme Court of India on 16 February 2026 scheduled a batch of review petitions concerning the September 2018 Sabarimala judgment for hearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench from 7 April 2026.
- The Kerala government indicated it will take an "appropriate and deliberate stand" on the women's entry issue ahead of the hearing, with written submissions due by 14 March 2026.
- The nine-judge bench will hear review petitioners from 7-9 April, opponents of the review from 14-16 April, rejoinder submissions on 21 April, and amicus curiae on 22 April.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the Centre supports the review of the 2018 verdict that allowed entry of women of all ages into the shrine.
- The Constitution Bench will also hear related cases concerning Muslim women's entry into dargahs and mosques, Parsi women's entry into fire temples after marrying non-Parsi men, and the validity of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Static Topic Bridges
Sabarimala Case and the 2018 Judgment
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Supreme Court ruled 4:1 that the exclusion of women aged 10-50 from the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple was unconstitutional. The majority held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate "religious denomination" under Article 26, and that the exclusionary practice was not an "essential religious practice" protected by the Constitution. Justice Indu Malhotra, in her lone dissent, held that the temple's devotees met the criteria for a religious denomination and the practice was protected under Article 26(b).
- Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)
- Bench: 5-judge Constitution Bench; Verdict: 4:1 majority allowing women's entry
- CJI Dipak Misra (majority): exclusion violates right to equality and freedom of religion
- Justice Chandrachud (majority): the practice amounts to "untouchability" under Article 17
- Justice Indu Malhotra (dissent): courts should not interfere with essential religious practices of denominations
- Review petitions: 65 petitions filed; referred to a larger 9-judge bench in November 2019
Connection to this news: The upcoming nine-judge bench hearing in April 2026 will re-examine the 2018 verdict, potentially settling the constitutional questions about religious practices, denominational rights, and gender equality that the 5-judge bench left contested.
Articles 25 and 26 — Freedom of Religion
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III. Article 26 grants every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, establish and maintain institutions, and manage property. The tension between individual religious freedom (Article 25) and institutional religious autonomy (Article 26) lies at the heart of the Sabarimala dispute.
- Article 25(1): freedom of conscience, right to profess, practise, propagate religion (subject to restrictions)
- Article 25(2)(b): State can make laws for "throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus"
- Article 26(b): right of a religious denomination to "manage its own affairs in matters of religion"
- Article 14: right to equality; Article 15: prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex
- Article 17: abolition of untouchability in all its forms
- Judicial test: "Essential Religious Practices" doctrine (Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, 1954)
Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench must determine the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 and resolve whether Article 25(2)(b), which empowers the state to open Hindu temples to all sections, overrides a denomination's right under Article 26(b) to manage its religious affairs.
Essential Religious Practices Doctrine
The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, first articulated by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), holds that constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends only to practices that are "essential" or "integral" to a religion, as determined by the courts. The doctrine has been controversial because it requires secular courts to adjudicate on religious questions, determining what is "essential" to a faith. Critics argue this amounts to judicial overreach into theological matters.
- Origin: Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954)
- Test: whether a practice is "essential" or "integral" to the religion, without which the religion would change character
- Applied in: Sabarimala (2018), triple talaq (2017), Ananda Marga tandava dance (2004)
- Criticism: courts lack competence to determine religious essentiality; risks majoritarian interpretation
- Alternative approaches proposed: "anti-exclusion" principle (Justice Chandrachud in Sabarimala)
- The nine-judge bench may reconsider the scope and applicability of the ERP doctrine
Connection to this news: Whether the exclusion of menstruating women is an "essential" practice of the Ayyappa tradition is the central doctrinal question the nine-judge bench must resolve, with implications for how courts adjudicate religious practice disputes across all faiths.
Key Facts & Data
- Original Sabarimala verdict: 28 September 2018 (4:1 majority allowing women's entry)
- Review petitions filed: 65
- Referral to larger bench: November 2019
- Nine-judge bench hearing begins: 7 April 2026
- Written submissions deadline: 14 March 2026
- Related cases being heard together: Muslim women's entry into dargahs/mosques, Parsi women's entry into fire temples, Dawoodi Bohra FGM
- Key Articles: 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 17 (untouchability), 25 (religious freedom), 26 (denominational rights)
- ERP doctrine origin: Shirur Mutt case, 1954