What Happened
- A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the reference arising from the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, made the significant observation that "no religion is superior to the other" — signalling the bench's disposition to evaluate religious practices against universal constitutional values rather than treat any tradition as axiomatically entitled to protection.
- The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which manages the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, argued before the bench that the exclusion of women in the 10-50 age group (described in the petition as "fertile" or "menstruating-age" women) is not a blanket prohibition on women and that women of other ages are freely permitted to worship at Sabarimala.
- TDB's senior counsel argued that Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b) must be read harmoniously — that Article 25(2)(b) allows the state to legislate for access to Hindu public religious institutions, but once entry is secured, Article 26(b) governs how worship may be conducted within the denomination's traditions.
- The bench is in day 4+ of hearing the reference; parties supporting the restrictions are presenting their arguments in this phase, with the original writ petitioners (opposing restrictions) scheduled for April 14-16, 2026.
- The reference was triggered by review petitions filed against the 4:1 majority verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018), which had allowed women of all ages to enter Sabarimala.
Static Topic Bridges
The Constitutional Framework: Articles 25 and 26
Article 25(1) guarantees to every person the fundamental right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Article 25(2) enables the state to: (a) regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity associated with religious practice; and (b) provide for social welfare and reform, or throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of Hindus. Article 26 protects the rights of religious denominations to: (a) establish and maintain institutions; (b) manage their own affairs in matters of religion; (c) own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) administer such property.
- Article 25(1): individual freedom of religion — subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights
- Article 25(2)(b): specifically enables state legislation to throw open Hindu temples to all classes/sections of Hindus — the constitutional basis for temple entry reform
- Article 26(b): denominational right to manage own affairs "in matters of religion" — the TDB's primary defence
- The Sabarimala case: 5-judge bench in 2018 held 4:1 that the exclusion violated Articles 25(1) and 14 (equality); J. Indu Malhotra dissented
- The reference: a 9-judge bench was constituted to examine broader questions about the interplay between individual religious rights (Art 25) and denominational autonomy (Art 26), along with whether such practices constitute "essential religious practice"
Connection to this news: The SC's observation that no religion is superior to another signals that the bench will apply constitutional scrutiny uniformly, without granting any tradition an inherent exemption from fundamental rights review.
Article 17 and the Untouchability Argument
Article 17 abolishes "Untouchability" in any form and makes its practice a punishable offence. In the 2018 judgment, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (in his concurring opinion) had argued that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala based on menstruation — treating them as ritually impure — was analogous to untouchability under Article 17, which should be broadly interpreted to cover all forms of exclusion based on bodily attributes rooted in notions of purity and pollution. However, Justice B.V. Nagarathna — now on the 9-judge bench — has questioned this invocation, observing that a woman cannot be treated as "untouchable" for three days in a month and cease to be so on the fourth day, which does not fit the structural exclusion that Article 17 was designed to address.
- Article 17: abolishes untouchability; the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 criminalises its practice
- 2018 Sabarimala verdict: Justice Chandrachud applied Article 17 to ritual exclusion of women; Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice R.F. Nariman concurred on broader grounds
- The 9-judge bench is re-examining: whether exclusionary practices in different religions warrant judicial correction, and if so under what constitutional standard
- TDB's 2026 argument: exclusion is not total (women above 50 and below 10 may enter); the restriction is based on the deity's celibate character (Naishtika Brahmacharya), not gender inferiority
- SC's observed concern: denominational exclusions that divide Hindus into permitted/prohibited worshippers may ultimately harm Hinduism's own unity and social cohesion
Connection to this news: The Article 17 question is central — if the bench accepts the analogy between caste-based untouchability and menstruation-based exclusion, it would represent a significant expansion of fundamental rights jurisprudence with implications beyond Sabarimala.
Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB): Institutional Context
The Travancore Devaswom Board is a statutory body constituted under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, established to manage temples that were previously under the direct control of the royal family of Travancore. It manages approximately 1,248 temples in Kerala, including Sabarimala (Sree Dharmasastha Temple). The TDB is administered by a board of trustees appointed by the Kerala state government. Its role is both administrative (maintaining temple infrastructure, conducting festivals) and legal (defending temple practices before courts).
- TDB established under: Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950
- Manages: ~1,248 temples in Kerala; Sabarimala is the most significant by pilgrimage volume
- TDB changed its legal stance between 2018 and 2026: initially did not strongly oppose women's entry; in 2026 passed a resolution opposing it and changed counsel
- Sabarimala annual pilgrimage (Mandalam-Makaravilakku season): millions of devotees, one of the world's largest annual religious gatherings
- 2018 SC verdict: 4:1 allowed entry of women of all ages; TDB and review petitioners challenged it, leading to 2019 referral to 9-judge bench
Connection to this news: TDB's changed legal stance — from ambivalence to active opposition — reflects the political evolution in Kerala (where the ruling party faces electoral pressure from devotees) and raises questions about whether a statutory body can itself represent a "religious denomination" for the purposes of Article 26.
Key Facts & Data
- Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018) + review petitions → 9-judge reference
- 2018 verdict: 4:1 (majority: Chief Justice Misra, Justices Nariman, Chandrachud, Malhotra (dissent))
- 9-judge bench: led by CJI Surya Kant; includes Justices Nagarathna, Sundresh, Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Masih, Varale, Mahadevan, Bagchi
- Hearing schedule: April 7-9 (review petitioners), April 14-16 (original writ petitioners), April 21 (rejoinder)
- TDB counsel: Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi
- Age group at issue: women aged 10-50 (menstruating/fertile age); exclusion based on deity's Naishtika Brahmacharya (celibacy) character
- Article 25(2)(b): enables state to throw open Hindu public temples to all classes — the petitioners' primary argument
- Article 26(b): denominational right to manage own religious affairs — TDB's primary defence
- Article 17: abolition of untouchability — applied by Justice Chandrachud in 2018 concurrence, now under re-examination