What Happened
- The Travancore Devasom Board (TDB) — Kerala's state-run body that administers the Sabarimala temple — passed a resolution formally opposing the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple, and announced it would file an affidavit with the Supreme Court reflecting this position.
- This places the TDB in opposition to the 2018 Supreme Court verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which had held the exclusion of women of menstrual age unconstitutional.
- The Kerala state government (LDF) reversed its earlier position that it would implement the 2018 verdict, and has now told the Supreme Court it supports the protection of traditional practices at Sabarimala.
- A 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear review petitions on the Sabarimala case from April 7, 2026, along with related questions about the scope of religious freedom and judicial review of religious practices.
- Review petitioners (arguing against women's entry) are scheduled for April 7–9; those opposing the review (supporting women's entry) will be heard April 14–16.
- The case has expanded beyond Sabarimala: the 9-judge bench is examining broader questions about the essential religious practices doctrine, the scope of Articles 25–26, and the rights of religious denominations.
Static Topic Bridges
The 2018 Sabarimala Verdict — Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
On September 28, 2018, a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the Sabarimala case with a 4:1 majority, holding that the temple's practice of excluding women aged 10–50 was unconstitutional. The majority held that the practice violated Article 25(1) — the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion — of women devotees. The majority further held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination protected by Article 26, and thus could not exclude others from worship. The sole dissent came from Justice Indu Malhotra, who held that courts should not interfere with religious practices unless proven patently unconstitutional.
- Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)
- Bench: CJI Dipak Misra, Justices R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra
- Majority holding (4:1): exclusion of women violates Article 25(1); not protected by Article 26
- Justice Malhotra's dissent: courts should respect religious autonomy; Sabarimala devotees are a distinct denomination
- Practice challenged: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act, 1965 — permitted exclusion of women
Connection to this news: The TDB's resolution and the Kerala government's U-turn are responses to the unimplemented 2018 verdict — even after the Supreme Court ruling, the ban on young women's entry has continued in practice, with the state now formally backing the status quo before the 9-judge bench.
Articles 25 and 26 — Religious Freedom and Denominational Rights
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health, and to other fundamental rights. Article 26 grants religious denominations or sections thereof the right to manage their own religious affairs, including maintaining institutions for religious and charitable purposes. The tension between Articles 25 and 26 is the core constitutional issue in Sabarimala: does a temple's right under Article 26 to manage its own religious affairs override an individual devotee's right under Article 25(1) to worship? The majority said no; the dissent said yes.
- Article 25(2)(b): State may make laws providing for social welfare and reform, or throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections
- Article 26: Rights available to "religious denominations or sections thereof" — not to all Hindus collectively
- Shirur Mutt case (1954): established the "Essential Religious Practices" (ERP) doctrine — only practices essential to a religion are protected under Articles 25–26
- ERP doctrine: courts determine what is "essential" to a religion — this judicial role is itself contested
Connection to this news: The 9-judge bench will likely revisit the ERP doctrine itself — whether courts should evaluate which religious practices are "essential" is increasingly contested, and Sabarimala is the vehicle for a definitive constitutional ruling.
Essential Religious Practices Doctrine — History and Critique
The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine was first articulated in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954). Under this doctrine, protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends only to practices that are integral or essential to a religion, as determined by the courts. Critics argue this gives judges — not theologians — the power to define religious doctrine. The doctrine has been applied inconsistently: in some cases, courts have found certain practices essential (Ananda Marga processions with tandava dance); in others, non-essential (triple talaq in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017). The Sabarimala 9-judge bench may reconsider the doctrine's very validity.
- Shirur Mutt (1954): birth of ERP doctrine in Indian constitutional law
- Dargah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1962): ERP doctrine applied to Sufi practices
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): SC struck down triple talaq — not an "essential practice"
- Critical view: Nikhil Soni v. Union of India challenged the ERP framework; 9-judge bench partly constituted to address this
- 9-judge bench: previously constituted in 2019 after the 2018 verdict generated review petitions
Connection to this news: The April 2026 hearing before the 9-judge bench is not just about Sabarimala — it is a constitutional moment that will shape the ERP doctrine for all future religion-state disputes in India.
Travancore Devasom Board — Role and Authority
The Travancore Devasom Board (TDB) is a statutory body created by the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 to manage Hindu temples in the former Travancore kingdom, including Sabarimala. The TDB administers over 1,250 temples and is governed by a board appointed by the Kerala government. As a state-appointed body, the TDB is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 and is therefore bound by the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution — a key reason why the ban on women's entry was legally challenged in the first place. The TDB's formal resolution opposing women's entry is therefore also a statement about how the State will use its instrumentality against a Supreme Court directive.
- TDB established under: Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950
- Jurisdiction: ~1,250 temples in former Travancore region, including Sabarimala
- TDB is "State" under Article 12: bound by fundamental rights
- Annual Sabarimala pilgrimage season: November–January (Mandala-Makaravilakku season)
- Revenue: Sabarimala is one of the world's most visited pilgrimage sites, generating substantial state revenue
Connection to this news: Because TDB is a state instrumentality, its formal opposition to women's entry — backed by the state government — sets up a direct confrontation between the Kerala government's Article 12 obligations and the democratic preferences of devotees, which the 9-judge bench will need to resolve.
Key Facts & Data
- TDB resolution: passed March 2026 — opposes entry of women aged 10–50 at Sabarimala
- 2018 SC verdict (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. Kerala): 4:1 majority held exclusion unconstitutional
- 9-judge Constitution Bench: to hear review petitions from April 7, 2026
- Hearing schedule: review petitioners (April 7–9); those opposing review (April 14–16)
- Kerala government: reversed position; now supports traditional practices at Sabarimala
- Articles at stake: 25 (individual religious freedom), 26 (denominational rights)
- ERP doctrine origin: Shirur Mutt case, 1954
- TDB created under: Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950
- TDB administers: ~1,250 temples