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

SC to hear review petitions to 2018 Sabarimala judgement in April: A timeline of the case

February 18, 2026 6 min read Polity & Governance GS2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Supreme Court of India has scheduled a nine-judge Constitution Bench to begin hearing review petitions against the 2018 Sabarimala judgment from April 7, 2026.
  • The bench will be led by Chief Justice Surya Kant; hearings are scheduled until April 22, 2026 — 67 linked petitions will be considered.
  • The 2018 five-judge bench (4:1 majority) had held that the Sabarimala temple's custom of barring women aged 10–50 years was unconstitutional.
  • The review bench has expanded its scope beyond Sabarimala to include questions about Muslim women's entry into mosques, Parsi women's religious rights, and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication (community exclusion) practices.
  • The Central government has indicated it will support the review petitioners — marking a reversal from the position taken during the original 2018 hearing.

Static Topic Bridges

Essential Religious Practices Doctrine — Origin and Application

The "essential religious practices" (ERP) test is the Supreme Court's principal tool for determining which religious customs enjoy constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26. The doctrine was first articulated in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) (the "Shirur Mutt case"), where the Court held that a religion is entitled to protection only for its "essential and integral" practices — not every activity performed in the name of religion. The difficulty lies in who decides what is "essential": in practice, courts have arrogated this role, examining religious texts, practices, and history. Critics argue this puts secular courts in the untenable position of interpreting theology.

  • Article 25(1): Subject to public order, morality, and health, all persons have the right to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion.
  • Article 25(2)(b): The State may make laws providing for social welfare and reform, or throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus — the provision used to justify the 2018 ruling.
  • Article 26: Religious denominations have the right to manage religious affairs, maintain institutions, and administer property according to law — subject to public order, morality, and health.
  • Shirur Mutt (1954): ERP doctrine originated; court to determine what is "essential" to a religion.
  • Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1962): Court narrowed ERP further — only practices essential to the core of the religion (not mere superstitions) are protected.
  • Tilkayit Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan (1963): Court accepted evidence from within the religious community in determining ERP.

Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench is fundamentally reconsidering who should determine what constitutes an essential religious practice — and whether the ERP test as formulated is constitutionally sound — with Sabarimala as the occasion but much broader implications.

The 2018 Sabarimala Verdict — Constitutional Reasoning

In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) (the Sabarimala judgment), a 5-judge bench of CJI Dipak Misra, Justices Nariman, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra held (4:1) that the exclusionary practice violated Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 17 (untouchability prohibition, applied by analogy), 19(1)(a), and 21. The majority concluded that worshippers of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26 (and therefore cannot claim denomination-specific protections) and that the exclusion of women is not an essential religious practice. Justice Indu Malhotra's lone dissent argued that courts should not interfere with religious traditions upheld for centuries and that the ERP test should be applied with deference to the religious community's own understanding.

  • Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018): 4:1 majority; held Sabarimala exclusion unconstitutional.
  • Majority (CJI Misra, Justices Nariman, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud): Exclusion violates Articles 14, 15, 17, 25(1); not an essential religious practice; Ayyappa devotees not a separate denomination.
  • Dissent (Justice Indu Malhotra): Courts should not interfere with religious traditions unless they result in "national shame"; the correct approach is to leave such reform to the religious community itself.
  • Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act, 1965 and Rule 3(b): The rule prohibiting women's entry was struck down as ultra vires Article 25.
  • "Constitutional morality" vs. "popular morality": CJI Misra and Justice Chandrachud held that constitutional morality (values embedded in the Constitution) must override popular morality (social norms) — a conceptual formulation central to recent rights jurisprudence.

Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench's April 2026 hearing will determine whether the "constitutional morality" vs. "popular morality" framework from the Sabarimala majority survives scrutiny by a larger bench — with consequences for how Indian courts approach religious reform cases going forward.

Review Jurisdiction and the 9-Judge Bench: Constitutional Procedure

In 2019, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while disposing of review petitions, referred certain questions to a larger bench — acknowledging that the Sabarimala case raised broader questions about the interplay between Articles 25, 26, and other fundamental rights that required authoritative determination. The larger bench (initially intended to be 7 judges, now expanded to 9) will adjudicate these questions. The reference is not a "review" in the formal sense (which is heard by the same bench in chambers under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules) — it is a constitutional reference for authoritative interpretation of open questions. The nine-judge bench's ruling will be binding on all smaller benches and will set the jurisprudential framework for religious freedom cases across India.

  • Review petition: Filed under Article 137 of the Constitution and Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules; normally heard by same bench in chambers, on limited grounds (error apparent on the face of the record).
  • Reference to a larger bench: Under Article 143 (presidential reference) or the Court's inherent power to refer questions to a larger bench when important constitutional questions arise — used here in 2019.
  • A 9-judge bench ruling requires more than a simple majority for a binding ratio — in practice, the plurality opinion carries the legal force.
  • The bench will also examine questions about: whether a religious denomination has an exclusive right to determine essential practices; whether the State's reformatory power under Article 25(2)(b) overrides Article 26 rights; and whether judicial review of religious practice is appropriate at all.
  • Expanded scope (Muslim women in mosques, Parsi rights, Dawoodi Bohra excommunication): These were linked matters referred alongside Sabarimala; the 9-judge bench's framework will address all simultaneously.

Connection to this news: The April 2026 hearing is one of the most significant constitutional events in the coming months — a 9-judge ruling will reshape how Articles 25 and 26 are interpreted for decades.

Key Facts & Data

  • Sabarimala temple: Located in Pathanamthitta district, Kerala; one of the world's most visited pilgrimage sites (~50 million visitors per year during Mandala-Makaravilakku season).
  • 2018 verdict date: September 28, 2018.
  • Post-verdict situation: Despite the verdict, actual women's entry remained limited due to protests and security concerns; the Kerala government's enforcement approach was contested.
  • Nine-judge bench composition (as announced): Led by CJI Surya Kant; hearings scheduled April 7–22, 2026.
  • Number of review petitions: 67 linked petitions across the Sabarimala, mosque entry, and Parsi rights matters.
  • Centre's position: Union government will support review petitioners — marking a policy shift from the Modi government's neutral stance in 2018.
  • Timeline: 2018 verdict → 2019 review petition hearing → 2019 reference to 9-judge bench → 2026 April hearings (7 years in between).
  • Article 25(2)(b) states: "nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law 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" — the provision the 2018 majority relied on most heavily.