What Happened
- A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, continued its hearing on the Sabarimala temple entry issue on April 8, 2026.
- The Bench, which began hearing the reference on April 7, 2026, is examining whether the 2018 five-judge verdict — which allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple — requires reconsideration.
- The Chief Justice observed that "logic may not be the right tool to examine faith and belief systems," signalling judicial acknowledgment of the complex relationship between rational scrutiny and religious traditions.
- The nine-judge bench is examining a broader set of constitutional questions, including the interplay between Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26, and whether courts should apply the "essential religious practices" test to resolve such disputes.
- The reference extends beyond Sabarimala to related issues: Muslim women's access to mosques, Parsi women's religious rights, and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication practices.
Static Topic Bridges
Constitution Bench and the Reference System
Under Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution, any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution must be heard by a Bench of at least five judges. When a smaller bench determines that a question of constitutional importance needs to be settled — or that a previous larger bench decision needs reconsideration — it can refer the matter to a larger Constitution Bench.
- A nine-judge bench is the second largest possible bench (after an eleven-judge bench), and its formation signals the gravity of the constitutional questions involved.
- The nine-judge bench in the current Sabarimala reference comprises: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
- When a larger bench hears a reference, it may affirm, modify, or overrule the earlier decision of the smaller bench.
- Notable past nine-judge benches: Right to Privacy case (2017, Puttaswamy v. Union of India), which unanimously recognised privacy as a fundamental right.
Connection to this news: The formation of a nine-judge bench to review the 2018 Sabarimala verdict — itself decided by a five-judge bench — reflects the Supreme Court's recognition that the case raises foundational constitutional questions about the limits of judicial review over religious practices.
Articles 25 and 26: Freedom of Religion and Denominational Rights
Article 25 guarantees every individual the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. This right is subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to establish religious institutions, manage their own affairs in matters of religion, and own and administer property. Both rights are subject to state regulation.
- Article 25(2)(b) permits the state to enact laws providing for "social welfare and reform" — including throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
- The 2018 Sabarimala verdict (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala) held by a 4:1 majority that the ban on women aged 10–50 was unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 25(1).
- The lone dissent was by Justice Indu Malhotra, who argued courts should not interfere in deeply held religious beliefs unless they cause harm.
- Article 26 rights apply to a "religious denomination" — a distinct body with a common faith, common organisation, and a designation — with disputes arising over whether devotees of Lord Ayyappa qualify as a denomination.
Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench must determine whether the devotees of Ayyappa constitute a "denomination" under Article 26 (entitled to manage their own religious affairs, including the exclusion custom) and whether the exclusion is an "essential religious practice" — two questions the 2018 bench left partially unresolved.
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test
The Essential Religious Practices test is a judicially evolved doctrine used to determine whether a particular practice is integral to a religion — and thus protected under Articles 25 and 26 — or merely an optional or denominational custom that may be reformed. The test was first articulated in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) — the "Shirur Mutt case."
- Under the ERP test, courts examine whether a practice is "essential" to a religion by looking at religious scriptures, historical evidence, and the belief of the community — a task critics argue requires religious scholarship beyond a court's mandate.
- The 2018 Sabarimala majority held that the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice.
- The "sampradaya test" — determining whether an exclusion is part of the specific lineage or sect's tradition — is distinct from but related to the ERP test; petitioners in the 2026 review argue the 2018 verdict failed to apply the sampradaya test properly.
- The nine-judge bench may redefine the scope of the ERP test or evolve an alternative constitutional framework.
Connection to this news: The Chief Justice's observation that "logic may not be the right tool to examine faith" directly addresses concerns about the limitations of the ERP test — questioning whether secular courts should be the arbiter of what constitutes an "essential" religious practice.
Key Facts & Data
- 2018 Sabarimala verdict: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, decided by a 5-judge bench on September 28, 2018 (4:1 majority).
- Nine-judge bench constituted for review: began hearing April 7, 2026.
- CJI heading the bench: Justice Surya Kant.
- Articles in question: Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 25 (individual religious freedom), Article 26 (denominational rights).
- Essential Religious Practices test origin: Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (Shirur Mutt case, 1954).
- Previous major nine-judge bench: Right to Privacy — Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
- Article 145(3): requires Constitution Bench of at least 5 judges for substantial constitutional questions.