What Happened
- The nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing the Sabarimala review reference continued on April 9, 2026, with the Supreme Court articulating the position that devotees who wish to enter a temple must follow its established rituals and practices — or refrain from entering.
- Petitioners argued that the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, which allowed women of all ages to enter the temple, failed to apply the "sampradaya test" — the evaluation of whether an exclusion is integral to the specific religious sect's (sampradaya's) tradition.
- The government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that secular courts lack the scholarly competence to determine what constitutes an essential religious practice within a specific denominational tradition.
- The Bench raised the possibility that blanket exclusions from places of worship risk dividing society and adversely impacting religious communities themselves — cautioning against absolute positions on either side.
- The hearing covered related constitutional issues including Muslim women's access to mosques and Parsi women's entry into the Tower of Silence (dokhma).
Static Topic Bridges
The Sampradaya Test vs. Essential Religious Practices Test
The "sampradaya" (religious lineage/sect) test evaluates whether a practice is an intrinsic part of the specific religious sect's tradition and identity, rather than whether it is essential to Hinduism as a whole. This is more granular than the broader Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test, which asks whether a practice is essential to the religion in general. Petitioners in the Sabarimala review contend that the 2018 bench wrongly applied the general ERP test when it should have examined whether the exclusion is essential to the specific Ayyappa sampradaya.
- "Sampradaya" in Hindu religious tradition refers to a lineage of teaching, practice, and devotional tradition — it has its own distinct deity, rituals, codes of conduct (achara), and theological framework.
- The Ayyappa sampradaya is centred on the worship of Lord Ayyappa (Manikandan) at Sabarimala — a deity regarded as "Naishtika Brahmacharya" (eternal celibate), and the exclusion of women of menstruating age is claimed to be integral to this specific devotional tradition.
- The government's argument that courts lack "scholarly competence" to adjudicate on religious doctrine reflects a separation of jurisdiction concern — analogous to how courts defer to legislative expertise in technical regulatory matters.
- If the nine-judge bench endorses a more deferential sampradaya test, it could signal a significant retreat from judicial intervention in religious customs.
Connection to this news: The court's statement that temple visitors must follow established rituals — or stay out — implicitly acknowledges the validity of religious communities setting conditions for entry, making the scope and limits of this principle the central constitutional question before the bench.
Right to Religion vs. Right to Equality: Constitutional Tension
The Sabarimala case sits at the intersection of two competing clusters of fundamental rights. Articles 14 (equality before law) and 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth) guarantee non-discriminatory access to public institutions. Articles 25 and 26 protect religious freedom and denominational autonomy. When these rights conflict — as when a temple's exclusionary practice discriminates on the basis of sex — the Constitution's internal hierarchy and the doctrine of harmonious construction determine the outcome.
- Article 15(2)(b) specifically prohibits exclusion from "shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment" on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth — but temples are not explicitly listed.
- Article 25(2)(b) permits state laws providing for social reform, including throwing open Hindu religious institutions to "all classes and sections of Hindus."
- The 2018 majority held that the Sabarimala temple, funded partially by the government (Travancore Devaswom Board), qualifies as a public institution subject to constitutional equality norms.
- The distinction between a state-controlled or state-regulated temple and a purely private denominational institution is critical — state connection makes Article 12 and Part III applicability more direct.
Connection to this news: The bench's expansion of the reference to cover mosques, dargahs, and Parsi fire temples signals a comprehensive review of how the equality-religion tension is resolved across different faith communities, not just Hinduism.
Travancore Devaswom Board and State Temple Administration
The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) is a statutory body established under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, to administer approximately 1,200 temples in Kerala (including Sabarimala) on behalf of the state. Its existence makes Sabarimala a state-administered temple — a critical fact in the constitutional analysis, as state administration subjects the temple to constitutional accountability under Part III.
- The TDB was established following a merger of the former Travancore and Cochin states' temple administration boards after Indian independence.
- Because TDB is a statutory body, it is "state" under Article 12 — and state action that discriminates on the basis of sex is directly challengeable under Articles 14 and 15.
- Annual pilgrim numbers to Sabarimala range from 40–50 million, making it one of the world's largest annual pilgrimage gatherings.
- The pilgrimage season runs primarily during the Malayalam month of Vrischikam (November–December) and Mandalam–Makaravilakku period.
Connection to this news: The state's management of Sabarimala through TDB is what brings the exclusion practice within the court's constitutional purview — a purely private temple might have stronger claims under Article 26.
Key Facts & Data
- 2018 Sabarimala verdict: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala — 4:1 majority (5-judge bench).
- Sabarimala annual pilgrimage attendance: approximately 40–50 million (one of the world's largest pilgrimages).
- Travancore Devaswom Board administers: approximately 1,200 temples in Kerala including Sabarimala.
- Nine-judge bench review: began April 7, 2026; CJI Surya Kant presiding.
- Scope of reference: Sabarimala, Muslim women's mosque access, Parsi women's rights (Tower of Silence), Dawoodi Bohra excommunication.
- Article 25(2)(b): permits social reform laws throwing open Hindu institutions to all Hindus.
- Article 26: protects denominational management of religious affairs — subject to public order, morality, health.
- Shirur Mutt case (1954): origin of Essential Religious Practices test.