What Happened
- The Supreme Court has constituted a nine-judge constitutional bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, to hear a batch of cases examining the scope of religious freedom and its conflict with women's rights.
- Hearings are scheduled to begin on April 7, 2026, and will address the review petitions arising from the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which allowed women of all ages into the Ayyappa temple in Kerala.
- The cases before the bench also include the question of entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, entry of Parsi women married to non-Parsi men into Agiary (Parsi fire temples), and the legality of female genital mutilation (FGM) practiced in some communities.
- The bench composition spans multiple faiths and includes the first woman judge on such a bench — Justice B V Nagarathna — along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi, R Mahadevan, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, and Prasanna B Varale.
- The larger constitutional questions include whether the "essential religious practices" doctrine should be revisited, and how to balance individual rights under Article 25 against the collective rights of religious denominations under Article 26.
Static Topic Bridges
Articles 25 and 26: The Core Constitutional Tension
Article 25 guarantees all persons the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. It also allows the State to regulate or restrict secular activities associated with religious practice. Article 26 separately protects the rights of religious denominations — as collectives — to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, establish and maintain institutions, and administer property.
- Article 25 is an individual right; Article 26 is a collective right of denominations.
- Both rights are subject to public order, morality, and health — not absolute.
- Article 25(2)(b) explicitly allows the State to provide for social welfare and reform and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections.
- The tension arises when a denomination's claim to manage its religious affairs (Art. 26) conflicts with an individual's right to freely practice religion (Art. 25) or equality rights (Art. 14/15).
Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench will determine whether denying women entry into certain religious sites constitutes a protected "management of religious affairs" by a denomination, or an impermissible curtailment of women's individual rights.
The Essential Religious Practices Doctrine
The Supreme Court has held that constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends only to practices that are "essential" or "integral" to a religion — not to every practice associated with it. This doctrine has been used by courts to test whether a challenged practice is so fundamental that without it, the religion would be materially altered.
- First articulated in the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (Shirur Mutt) case (1954).
- Applied in Sabarimala (2018): the majority held that the exclusion of women of menstruating age was not an essential religious practice of Hinduism, while the dissent by Justice Indu Malhotra held that courts should not interfere with faith-based practices.
- The doctrine has been criticised for requiring courts to act as theologians — a role they may not be equipped to play.
- The nine-judge bench is expected to re-examine whether the doctrine itself needs to be reconceived.
Connection to this news: The outcome of the bench's deliberations will either reinforce or significantly modify the essential religious practices doctrine, affecting how all future religious freedom disputes are resolved.
The Sabarimala Judgment (2018) and Its Aftermath
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), a five-judge constitutional bench, by a 4:1 majority, held that the Travancore Devaswom Board's practice of prohibiting entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The majority found it violated Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25.
- The majority held that physiological characteristics cannot be a basis for exclusion from places of worship.
- Justice Indu Malhotra's lone dissent argued that matters of deep religious faith should not be subject to judicial review unless there is complete unanimity among the community.
- A review petition was referred to a larger bench in 2019, with the Supreme Court framing broader questions including whether the court should revisit the essential practices doctrine entirely.
- The 2018 judgment is not stayed — the Sabarimala temple is technically open to women of all ages, though implementation has been contested on the ground.
Connection to this news: The 2026 nine-judge bench is a direct consequence of this 2018 judgment, and its outcome will authoritatively settle the law on religious exclusion and gender rights for all faiths, not just Hinduism.
Constitutional Benches: When and Why Nine Judges?
The Constitution under Article 145(3) requires that any case involving a substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution must be heard by a bench of at least five judges. Larger benches (7, 9, or more) are constituted when the court seeks to resolve conflicting decisions of smaller benches or to settle particularly significant constitutional questions with finality.
- A nine-judge bench is the largest constitutional bench regularly constituted and is convened for questions of extraordinary national importance.
- Recent examples: the nine-judge bench in the Property Rights (Art. 31C) reference (2024) and the Sabarimala reference.
- Decisions of a nine-judge bench can only be overruled by a bench of equal or greater size.
- The quorum requirement ensures that the verdict represents a broad judicial consensus on fundamental rights questions.
Connection to this news: The nine-judge composition signals the Supreme Court's recognition that the questions being heard — about the relationship between religion, gender, and constitutional rights — are among the most consequential in Indian constitutional law.
Key Facts & Data
- Hearing start date: April 7, 2026
- Bench strength: 9 judges (CJI Surya Kant + 8 others)
- Sabarimala judgment year: 2018 (4:1 majority, five-judge bench)
- Religions covered in current cases: Hinduism (Sabarimala), Islam (mosques/dargahs), Zoroastrianism (Agiary entry for intermarried Parsi women), and a minority community practice (FGM)
- Article 25: Individual right to practice, profess, propagate religion
- Article 26: Collective right of religious denominations to manage affairs
- Article 145(3): Minimum five-judge bench for substantial constitutional questions
- Relevant prior cases: Shirur Mutt (1954), Sabarimala (2018)