What Happened
- A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, commenced hearing review petitions challenging the 2018 Sabarimala judgment in the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case.
- The Centre told the Supreme Court that the 2018 five-judge bench ruling — which allowed women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple — was flawed, and that restricting entry of women in the menstruating age group (10–50 years) should be upheld.
- The Central Government argued that the 2018 verdict incorrectly assumed "men superior" framing and failed to appreciate the deity's nature — Lord Ayyappa's celibacy (Naishtika Brahmacharya) — as the basis of the tradition.
- The Centre contended that the temple's practices are "sui generis" (unique), rooted in the deity's identity, and therefore not amenable to general constitutional principles of equality.
- The nine-judge bench has been constituted to resolve broader constitutional questions: the scope of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test, the interplay between Articles 25 and 26, and their relationship to Article 14 (equality).
Static Topic Bridges
The 2018 Sabarimala Judgment — Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench (4:1 majority) held that the Sabarimala temple's custom barring women aged 10–50 was unconstitutional. The majority — Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, and D.Y. Chandrachud — held that the exclusionary practice violated the fundamental right of women to equality (Article 14) and freedom of religion (Article 25). The majority also held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, holding that religious practices, even if irrational, are protected under Articles 25 and 26, and that courts should not interfere in matters of faith.
- Judgment date: September 28, 2018.
- Bench: 5-judge Constitution Bench; majority of 4:1.
- Rule struck down: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
- Majority held: Restriction is not an Essential Religious Practice; violates Articles 14 and 25.
- Dissent (Justice Malhotra): Courts should not adjudicate on faith; devotees of Lord Ayyappa are a denomination under Article 26.
- Review petition filed in November 2019: SC did not decide but referred broader questions to a 9-judge bench.
Connection to this news: The Centre's current arguments before the 9-judge bench essentially adopt Justice Malhotra's dissent — that the 2018 majority erred in applying constitutional morality over religious denomination rights.
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test
The Essential Religious Practices test is a judicial doctrine developed by the Supreme Court to determine which religious practices are protected under Articles 25 and 26. Only practices that are "essential" or "integral" to a religion — without which the religion itself would be fundamentally altered — receive constitutional protection. The test originated in the Shirur Mutt case (1954) and has been applied inconsistently, leading to significant judicial debate. Critics argue courts are ill-equipped to determine theological essentiality; the Centre's argument in the Sabarimala review echoes this critique.
- Originating case: Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (Shirur Mutt Case), 1954.
- Core question: Is the practice central/essential to the religion — not merely peripheral or customary?
- The 2018 bench split on whether the Sabarimala restriction was "essential" to Hindu religion or specific to Lord Ayyappa's celibate nature.
- The 9-judge bench is tasked with definitively resolving the ERP test's scope and the Shirur Mutt vs. Durgah Committee case tension.
- The Centre now argues the ERP test should not even apply — courts cannot scrutinise practices tied to a deity's intrinsic nature.
Connection to this news: Whether the nine-judge bench reformulates or narrows the ERP test will have far-reaching consequences beyond Sabarimala — affecting all cases of religious practice challenging state regulation or constitutional rights.
Articles 25 and 26 — Freedom of Religion
Article 25 guarantees every person the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. Article 26 protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, and administer their properties. The tension between these provisions and Article 14 (equality) — particularly gender equality — is the central constitutional question in Sabarimala. The nine-judge bench must determine how to balance these rights when they appear to conflict.
- Article 25(1): Freedom of conscience and religious practice for all persons; subject to state regulation on grounds of public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
- Article 25(2)(b): State may make laws providing for social welfare and reform, or throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes of Hindus.
- Article 26: Rights of religious denominations — to establish/maintain institutions, manage religious affairs, own property.
- Article 26 condition: "Denomination" must be a distinct religious community with common faith, organisation, and a definite name.
- 2018 majority held Ayyappa devotees are not a "denomination" — they are part of the Hindu religion broadly.
- Centre's 2026 argument: Sabarimala tradition is denomination-like ("sui generis") and protected under Article 26.
Connection to this news: The Centre's argument effectively attempts to recharacterise the Sabarimala devotees as qualifying for Article 26 protection — a position the 2018 majority rejected but the nine-judge bench may now reconsider.
Nine-Judge Constitution Bench — Significance
A nine-judge Constitution Bench is the highest possible judicial forum in India, convened only for matters of exceptional constitutional importance. It can overrule earlier Constitution Bench decisions (typically of 5 or 7 judges). The Sabarimala reference to a nine-judge bench in November 2019 also linked to pending questions in related cases involving female genital mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohras, entry of women into mosques, and the rights of Parsi women married outside the faith. The nine-judge bench's eventual ruling will be a landmark on the ERP test, denomination rights, and the limits of judicial review over religious practice.
- Nine-judge bench is the highest possible strength of the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench.
- Reference in November 2019 — linked Sabarimala to four other pending religious practice cases.
- CJI Surya Kant is the current presiding judge of the bench.
- Questions referred: (a) What is the correct test for Essential Religious Practices? (b) Does Article 26 protect practices against Article 14 challenge? (c) What is the scope of Article 25(2)(b)?
Connection to this news: The Centre's intervention before this bench is significant — the executive branch is weighing in on what has historically been treated as a purely judicial-religious question, signalling a policy stance on state non-interference in temple traditions.
Key Facts & Data
- 2018 judgment: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala — September 28, 2018.
- Majority: 4:1 — women of all ages permitted entry; dissent by Justice Indu Malhotra.
- Rule struck down: Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
- 2019: Review petition heard; SC referred broader questions to a nine-judge bench.
- Current bench: Nine-judge Constitution Bench, CJI Surya Kant presiding.
- Centre's argument: Sabarimala restriction is "sui generis," linked to Lord Ayyappa's celibate (Naishtika Brahmacharya) nature; not open to judicial review.
- Constitutional provisions at stake: Articles 14, 25, 26.
- ERP test origin: Shirur Mutt Case (1954).
- Linked cases before 9-judge bench: Female genital mutilation (Dawoodi Bohras), women entry in mosques, Parsi women's temple rights.