What Happened
- The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which administers the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple in Kerala, passed a formal resolution on March 2, 2026, opposing the entry of women of menstruating age (10–50 years) into the temple.
- The TDB announced it would file an affidavit before the Supreme Court by March 14, 2026, formally opposing women's entry — a reversal of the board's earlier neutral stance following the 2018 Supreme Court judgment.
- The affidavit is being filed ahead of a landmark hearing by a 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court scheduled to begin from April 7, 2026, which will hear review petitions challenging the 2018 Sabarimala judgment.
- The 9-judge bench will also hear related matters concerning Muslim women's entry into dargahs and mosques, entry of Parsi women married to non-Parsis into Zoroastrian fire temples, and the Dawoodi Bohra community's practice of female genital mutilation.
- The TDB President stated that the board's mandate includes protecting temple traditions, and the resolution reflects unanimity within the board on defending the custom of restricting women of menstruating age.
- Hearing schedule: Review petitioners to be heard April 7–9; parties opposing review on April 14–16; rejoinder on April 21; amicus curiae by April 22.
Static Topic Bridges
The 2018 Sabarimala Judgment — Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority on September 28, 2018, held that the practice of prohibiting the entry of women aged 10–50 years into the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The majority held the exclusion was not an Essential Religious Practice and violated the constitutional rights of women devotees.
- Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 1
- Ratio: Exclusion of women could not be justified as an Essential Religious Practice because no scriptural basis adequately demonstrated that permitting women would destroy or fundamentally alter the nature of the faith
- Constitutional provisions engaged: Article 25 (freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion), Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs), Article 15 (non-discrimination on grounds of sex), Article 17 (abolition of untouchability — the majority analogised physiological exclusion to untouchability)
- Rule struck down: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which barred women who are "not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship"
- Sole dissent: Justice Indu Malhotra held that the exclusion could be an essential religious practice and courts should not intervene in matters of religious faith
Connection to this news: The TDB's affidavit seeks to restore the pre-2018 position; the 9-judge bench will authoritatively determine whether the 2018 majority was correctly decided.
Essential Religious Practices Doctrine
The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test is the Supreme Court's framework for deciding when a religious practice receives constitutional protection under Article 25. Only practices that are "essential" or "integral" to a religion — without which the religion would fundamentally change — attract constitutional protection from state regulation.
- Doctrine originated in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954): the court first distinguished between religious faith/belief (protected) and secular activities associated with religion (regulable)
- The ERP test has been criticised as judicially determining religious doctrine, an exercise courts may not be qualified for
- In Sabarimala, the majority held the exclusion was not ERP; the dissent held it was, because Lord Ayyappa's deity form is that of a Naishtika Brahmachari (permanent celibate)
- The 9-judge bench is expected to re-examine whether courts should engage in the ERP test at all, or adopt a more deferential posture — a question that has broader implications for religion-state relations in India
Connection to this news: The TDB's core argument is that the exclusion of menstruating women is an essential religious practice because Lord Ayyappa's celibate form would be compromised — the same argument the dissenting judge accepted in 2018.
Reference to 9-Judge Bench and Constitutional Bench Jurisdiction
Following the 2018 judgment, multiple review and curative petitions were filed. In February 2020, a 5-judge bench referred the Sabarimala review petitions to a larger bench to address the broader questions about ERP doctrine, women's rights in religious spaces, and judicial interference in religious practices.
- A Constitution Bench (5 judges) can hear matters involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation (Article 145(3))
- A larger 9-judge bench signals that the questions are of such fundamental constitutional importance that the earlier 5-judge bench framework may be inadequate
- The batch of cases now consolidated: Sabarimala (Hindu women), dargah entry (Muslim women), fire temple entry (Parsi women), female genital mutilation (Dawoodi Bohra)
- This consolidation suggests the court wants a single authoritative pronouncement on the interplay between Article 25/26 (religious freedom) and fundamental rights of individuals within religious communities
- All parties, including the Kerala state government and the Central government, were directed to file written submissions by March 14, 2026
Connection to this news: The TDB's affidavit is its formal submission to this consolidated 9-judge bench — a once-in-a-generation constitutional moment for religion-state jurisprudence in India.
Key Facts & Data
- 2018 Sabarimala judgment date: September 28, 2018
- Judgment vote: 4:1 majority (CJI Dipak Misra, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud — for allowing entry; Justice Indu Malhotra — dissent)
- Practice challenged: Prohibition of women aged 10–50 from entering Sabarimala temple
- Rule struck down: Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965
- TDB affidavit filing deadline: March 14, 2026
- 9-judge bench hearing begins: April 7, 2026
- Related cases before the same bench: Muslim women/dargah entry, Parsi women/fire temples, Dawoodi Bohra female genital mutilation
- Administering body: Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), a statutory body under the Kerala government
- Deity: Lord Ayyappa (Sree Dharma Sastha) — worshipped in the form of a Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate)