What Happened
- A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court commenced hearing on April 7, 2026, in the reference arising from review petitions challenging the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.
- The bench is led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and includes Justices Joymalya Bagchi, B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, and Prasanna B. Varale.
- Review petitioners and parties supporting them are being heard on April 7–9, 2026; parties opposing the review are scheduled for April 14–16, 2026.
- Experts note the decision will have far-reaching consequences for women's religious freedoms in India.
- The hearing encompasses not only Sabarimala but also related questions: restriction on Muslim women's entry into mosques, Female Genital Mutilation practices among the Dawoodi Bohra community, and rights of Parsi women married outside the community to access Fire Temples.
- The Centre argued that "patriarchy is alien to India" and that India puts women on a high pedestal, while also urging the Court to uphold the restriction on menstruating women entering the temple.
Static Topic Bridges
Constitution Bench and Larger Bench Reference System
When a case raises substantial questions of constitutional law, Article 145(3) of the Constitution requires that it be heard by a bench of not fewer than five judges. When a smaller bench encounters questions that a larger bench has already decided, or when doubt is cast on a precedent, the matter is referred to a larger bench.
- Article 145(3): Minimum five-judge bench for cases involving substantial questions of constitutional law.
- The 2018 Sabarimala verdict was delivered by a 5-judge bench (4:1 majority).
- In 2019, a 5-judge review bench in Kantaru Rajeevaru referred seven broader constitutional questions to a 9-judge bench, recognising that these questions went beyond Sabarimala alone.
- The seven questions include: scope of Articles 25 and 26, the essential religious practices test, the interplay between individual religious freedom and denominational rights, and whether Article 17 (untouchability) applies to gender-based exclusions.
- This is only the second 9-judge bench to sit in recent years (after the Privacy judgment in 2017).
Connection to this news: The formation of a 9-judge bench underscores the constitutional significance of the questions, which will affect religious freedom jurisprudence across diverse communities and contexts.
Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices (ERP)
The ERP doctrine is the primary judicial tool for deciding whether a challenged religious practice is constitutionally protected under Article 25 or 26.
- Origin: Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 — the Court held that what constitutes the essence of a religion must be determined by the religion itself; the state cannot reform a religion by saying a practice is not essential.
- Development: Over decades, the Court has oscillated between a strict test (courts cannot assess religious essentiality) and a more interventionist position (courts can examine whether a practice is truly essential and whether it is being used as a cloak for discrimination).
- The 2018 Sabarimala majority held the age-based exclusion was NOT an essential practice; Justice Indu Malhotra (dissenting) held courts should not interfere with sincerely-held religious beliefs.
- The 9-judge bench is expected to provide a more definitive framework.
Connection to this news: The outcome of the reference will settle whether age/gender-based exclusions at religious places qualify as protected essential practices, with implications for all religious communities in India.
Articles 14, 15, and 17 — Equality and Untouchability
Article 14 guarantees equality before law. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 17 abolishes "untouchability" and its practice in any form is an offence.
- The 2018 majority, notably Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, held that exclusion based on menstruation is akin to untouchability under Article 17, which applies not just to caste-based exclusion but to any stigmatising exclusion from public spaces.
- Article 17 read with the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 creates criminal liability for untouchability practices.
- The Centre in 2026 hearings objected to drawing a parallel between menstruation-based exclusion and untouchability, arguing they are categorically different.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned this objection, asking how treating women as impure for three days a month differs from untouchability.
Connection to this news: The 9-judge bench's interpretation of Article 17 — whether it extends beyond caste-based untouchability to any stigmatising exclusion — is a pivotal constitutional question being argued in this reference.
Judicial Review of Religious Matters and Separation of Powers
Courts in India have jurisdiction to examine religious practices when they violate fundamental rights, but face the challenge of balancing judicial review with religious autonomy.
- The Supreme Court in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962) upheld the Dai-ul-Mutlaq's power of excommunication as a religious matter, illustrating judicial deference.
- In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983), the Court held that Aurobindo Society's practices were not a "religion" for Article 25 purposes.
- Recent judgments like Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Joseph Shine (2018) have shown willingness to apply constitutional morality over social morality.
- The question of judicial competence to determine what is "essential" to a religion is itself being re-examined before the 9-judge bench.
Connection to this news: The broad hearing schedule (April 7–16) and the inclusion of cases from multiple religious communities signals the Court's intent to lay down a comprehensive constitutional framework for adjudicating religion-versus-equality claims.
Key Facts & Data
- 2018 Sabarimala verdict: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala — 4:1 majority, CJI Dipak Misra writing for the majority.
- 2019 Review reference: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association — 5-judge bench referred 7 questions to a 9-judge bench.
- The 9-judge bench constituted in 2026 is chaired by CJI Surya Kant.
- Related cases being clubbed: Muslim women's entry into mosques; Female Genital Mutilation (Dawoodi Bohra); Parsi women married outside community.
- Kerala Assembly elections due in 2026; the Kerala government reversed its 2018 pro-entry stance before this hearing.
- The right to worship at a public temple is linked to Article 25 read with Article 13 — laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void.