What Happened
- The Supreme Court formally notified the constitution of a nine-judge Constitution Bench to hear the Sabarimala review case, with hearings commencing from 7 April 2026.
- The bench is headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
- The review arises from the landmark 28 September 2018 judgment (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala) in which a 4:1 majority allowed women of all ages to enter the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala, Kerala.
- There are 66 matters tagged to the Sabarimala review, including cases on: the right of Muslim women to enter mosques, the right of Parsi women to enter a Fire Temple after marrying a non-Parsi, and the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) among the Dawoodi Bohra community.
- Hearing schedule: Parties supporting review argue 7-9 April; parties opposing argue 14-16 April; rejoinder on 21 April; amicus curiae concludes on 22 April 2026.
Static Topic Bridges
Articles 25 and 26: Right to Freedom of Religion
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 subject to the State's power to regulate or restrict economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practice. Article 26 grants every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, and own and administer property. The tension between Article 25(1) (individual freedom of religion) and Article 26(b) (denominational right to manage religious affairs) lies at the heart of the Sabarimala dispute.
- Article 25(1): Individual right to freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality, health
- Article 25(2)(b): State can provide for social welfare and reform, or opening Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus
- Article 26(b): Religious denominations can manage their own affairs in matters of religion
- Article 14: Right to equality -- invoked by petitioners arguing gender-based exclusion is unconstitutional
- Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex -- central to the women's entry argument
Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench will re-examine whether the exclusion of women of menstruating age from Sabarimala is an essential religious practice protected under Article 26(b), or whether it violates the equality and non-discrimination guarantees under Articles 14, 15, and 25.
Essential Religious Practices Doctrine
The "essential religious practices" doctrine, established in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), holds that the court can determine which practices are essential or integral to a religion and thus deserving of constitutional protection. Only practices deemed "essential" receive protection under Articles 25 and 26; the State may regulate non-essential secular aspects. This doctrine has been applied in landmark cases: cow slaughter was held non-essential to Islam (Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, 1958); Tandava dance was held non-essential to Ananda Marg (Acharya Jagdishwaranand, 1984). In the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, the majority held that the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice of Hinduism.
- Origin: Shirur Mutt case (1954) -- courts determine what is "essential" to a religion
- Test: Whether the practice is integral to the core tenets of the religion
- Criticism: Judicial overreach -- courts, not religious communities, decide what is essential
- 2018 Sabarimala: Majority (4:1) held exclusion was not essential; Justice Indu Malhotra dissented
- Connected cases: Muslim women in mosques, Parsi women in Fire Temples, Dawoodi Bohra FGM
Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench will reconsider the scope and application of the essential religious practices doctrine, potentially redefining how courts balance individual rights against religious community autonomy across multiple faiths.
Constitutional Bench and Review Jurisdiction
Under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, any case involving a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution must be heard by a bench of at least five judges. The Supreme Court's review jurisdiction under Article 137 allows it to review any judgment or order it has passed, subject to Rules under Article 145. Review petitions must demonstrate an "error apparent on the face of the record" (Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC). When a review requires reconsideration of a larger legal question, the matter may be referred to a larger bench -- as happened here, where the 2018 five-judge bench's decision is being reviewed by a nine-judge bench to settle broader questions of religious freedom.
- Article 145(3): Substantial constitutional questions require minimum 5-judge bench
- Article 137: Supreme Court's power to review its own judgments
- Review grounds: Error apparent on face of record, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient reason
- Nine-judge bench: Larger than the original five-judge bench, reflecting the significance of the constitutional questions
- 66 matters tagged: Indicates the review goes beyond Sabarimala to address broader religious freedom issues
Connection to this news: The constitution of a nine-judge bench -- larger than the original five-judge bench that decided the 2018 case -- signals that the Court views the underlying questions about religious freedom, essential practices, and gender equality as requiring authoritative resolution applicable across all religions.
Key Facts & Data
- Original judgment: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 28 September 2018 (4:1 majority)
- Nine-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant; hearings from 7 April 2026
- 66 matters tagged to the Sabarimala review
- Connected cases: Muslim women's entry to mosques, Parsi women and Fire Temples, Dawoodi Bohra FGM
- Essential Religious Practices doctrine: Shirur Mutt case, 1954
- Article 25: Individual freedom of religion; Article 26: Denominational rights
- Article 145(3): Constitutional questions require minimum 5-judge bench
- Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole dissenter in the 2018 judgment