What Happened
- The Kerala government (LDF) filed a 17-page affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the question of women's entry into Sabarimala Temple should be decided only after consulting views of religious scholars and social reformers — a significant shift from its earlier unequivocal support for universal entry.
- This moderated position comes ahead of a nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing, scheduled to begin on April 7, 2026, which will examine the broader constitutional questions of religious freedom, essential religious practices, and gender equality.
- The state government's affidavit stated it cannot resolve the matter without consulting religious and social groups, reflecting political sensitivity ahead of the next Kerala Assembly elections.
- The Travancore Devasom Board (TDB), which manages Sabarimala, passed a resolution opposing women's entry and stated it would file a separate affidavit in the Supreme Court.
- The nine-judge bench will authoritatively decide the scope of Articles 25 and 26 (religious freedom), the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, and the conflict between religious denomination rights and gender equality — questions referred by a five-judge bench in November 2019 after review petitions were filed against the original 2018 verdict.
Static Topic Bridges
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) — The Sabarimala Verdict
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided the Sabarimala case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala) by a 4:1 majority. The majority (CJI Dipak Misra, and Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud) held that the practice of excluding women aged 10–50 from the temple was unconstitutional. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing that the courts should not interfere in matters of religious practice unless they involve social evils like untouchability.
- Case began as a Public Interest Litigation filed in 2006 by the Indian Young Lawyers Association
- The Kerala High Court (1991) had upheld the ban on women of menstruating age
- The 2018 verdict struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 — which allowed exclusion based on custom — as unconstitutional
- Majority held: devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination; the exclusion is not an essential religious practice
- Grounds: violated Article 25(1) (right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion), Article 14 (equality), and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex and religion)
Connection to this news: The 2018 verdict triggered massive review petition filings. In November 2019, the five-judge bench referred seven constitutional questions to a larger bench — currently the nine-judge bench scheduled for April 2026 — which means the 2018 verdict has been stayed pending this larger reference.
Articles 25 and 26 — Religious Freedom and Denomination Rights
Articles 25 and 26 together constitute the core constitutional framework for religious freedom in India. Article 25 guarantees every person the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and the other provisions of Part III. Article 26 guarantees every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain institutions, manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and own property.
- Article 25(2)(b): the State can make laws providing for social welfare and reform, or throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes of Hindus — this clause has been used to justify legislative interventions in temple access
- Article 26: rights are available to a "religious denomination" — a distinct religious group with a common faith and specific doctrinal beliefs
- Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine: courts can examine whether a practice is "essential" to a religion before protecting it; a judge-made doctrine developed over decades of jurisprudence
- Shirur Mutt case (1954): first articulation of ERP doctrine by the Supreme Court
- The nine-judge bench is specifically tasked with reviewing whether and how courts should apply the ERP test
Connection to this news: Kerala's moderated stance reflects the legal uncertainty — the nine-judge bench could potentially redefine the ERP doctrine in a way that either upholds the 2018 verdict or restores the temple's right to maintain the exclusion.
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine — Constitutional Tension
The Essential Religious Practices doctrine emerged from the need to distinguish between religious beliefs that are constitutionally protected and practices that can be subject to State regulation. The ERP test asks whether a practice is so fundamental to a religion that its removal would change the very character of that religion. It has been applied inconsistently, with courts sometimes acting as arbiters of theological interpretation — a role critics argue courts are not suited for.
- Shirur Mutt v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments (1954): SC held that what constitutes an essential part of a religion must be determined with reference to the doctrines of that religion
- Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961): refined the test — courts must determine whether a practice is integral and fundamental to the religion
- Triple Talaq case (Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017): SC held instantaneous triple talaq not an essential religious practice of Islam — upheld its abolition
- Sabarimala 2018: Justice Chandrachud's concurring opinion challenged the ERP doctrine itself, suggesting that practices which violate constitutional rights cannot be protected as "essential"
Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench hearing in April 2026 will definitively address whether the ERP doctrine, as currently applied, is constitutionally sound — with implications far beyond Sabarimala for all religious practices challenged under fundamental rights.
Key Facts & Data
- 2018 verdict: 4:1 majority; decided September 28, 2018; bench led by CJI Dipak Misra
- Kerala HC 1991: upheld ban on women aged 10–50 from Sabarimala
- Rule 3(b), Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965: struck down by 2018 verdict
- Review petitions filed: 2018-19; five-judge bench referred 7 constitutional questions to nine-judge bench in November 2019
- Nine-judge bench hearing: April 7, 2026
- Sabarimala: located in Pathanamthitta district, Kerala; in the Periyar Tiger Reserve
- TDB (Travancore Devasom Board): statutory body managing Sabarimala and ~1,200 other temples in Kerala
- Article 25(2)(b): key provision enabling state legislation on social welfare/reform for Hindu temples