Will a hypothetical change in rules on women’s entry amount to 'invasion', Supreme Court asks in Sabarimala case

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice of India, is hearing review petitions against the landmark 2018 judgment th...

What Happened

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice of India, is hearing review petitions against the landmark 2018 judgment that permitted women of menstruating age (10–50 years) entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
During concluding arguments, the Chief Justice posed a hypothetical: if the state were to alter the rules governing women's entry at Sabarimala on its own initiative, would that amount to an unconstitutional "invasion" of religious rights — questioning whether judicial relief must always await such a state action.
The Chief Justice underscored that while the state may take initiative to address social evils, judicial reliefs in constitutional cases depend on the specific facts and context of each case.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna made a notable observation that believers do not question established rituals, while those who do not believe in the deity cannot claim standing to challenge such practices.
The bench also examined the scope of judicial review in religious matters, with the Chief Justice rejecting the view that the court's power of review should be curtailed: "If the State, in the name of social welfare, prohibits a religious practice, who will examine it?"
The hearings, spanning approximately 14 days from April 7 to April 22, 2026, included arguments from all sides — review petitioners, respondents, and the amicus curiae appointed by the court.
The Central Government has expressed support for reviewing the 2018 verdict.

Static Topic Bridges

Essential Religious Practices Doctrine (ERP Test)

The Supreme Court has developed the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine to determine which religious practices receive constitutional protection under Article 25. Only practices that are essential or integral to a religion — not merely associated with it — qualify for protection. The court determines essentiality, not the religious community alone.

Article 25 guarantees 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 grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, establish institutions, and administer property.
In the 2018 Sabarimala judgment (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala), the 4:1 majority held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate "religious denomination" under Article 26, and the restriction on women was not an essential religious practice under Article 25.
The sole dissenter, Justice Indu Malhotra, argued that the courts should exercise judicial restraint in questions of faith, a view now being revisited by the nine-judge bench.

Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench is re-examining the scope and application of the ERP test — determining how courts decide what is "essential" to a religion, and who has standing to challenge such practices.

Nine-Judge Constitution Bench and the Reference Power

When significant constitutional questions arise that require reconsideration of earlier judgments or resolution of conflicting verdicts, the Supreme Court can refer matters to a larger bench. A nine-judge bench is the largest possible composition, signifying the highest level of constitutional gravity.

The reference arose from a 2019 order in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (Sabarimala Review), where a five-judge bench referred seven questions of law to a nine-judge bench.
The seven questions include: the scope of "morality" under Articles 25 and 26, the right of a religious denomination under Article 26, and whether PILs by non-devotees are maintainable in matters of faith.
Article 145(3) of the Constitution requires a minimum of five judges to hear cases involving substantial constitutional questions; there is no constitutional bar on larger benches for complex references.

Connection to this news: The present hearing is the culmination of that 2019 reference, with the nine-judge bench's ruling set to define the constitutional framework for religion-state relations across all faiths — not just Sabarimala.

Articles 14, 15, and 17: Equality and Untouchability

The 2018 majority judgment had invoked Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 17 (abolition of untouchability) to strike down the practice of excluding women from Sabarimala. These provisions are relevant to reviewing the extent of state power to regulate religious exclusions.

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.
Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth — including exclusion from public places.
Article 17 abolishes untouchability and makes its practice a punishable offence. The 2018 majority judgment controversially applied Article 17 in the context of treating women as ritually impure.
Article 25(2)(b) explicitly empowers the state to make laws providing for social welfare and reform, and throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of Hindus — a provision at the heart of the debate.

Connection to this news: A central question before the nine-judge bench is whether the exclusion of women at Sabarimala constitutes a form of discrimination cognisable under these articles, or whether it is a protected religious practice shielded by Articles 25 and 26.

India's Supreme Court holds expansive powers of judicial review — the authority to examine whether laws and executive actions conform to the Constitution. However, the boundaries of this power in matters of religion and personal law have been actively contested.

The power of judicial review derives from Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Constitution; the Supreme Court has described it as part of the basic structure of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973).
The debate in the Sabarimala reference is whether "constitutional morality" — a concept used in the 2018 judgment — can serve as an independent ground for judicial review of religious practices, or whether the courts should defer to popular morality in matters of faith.
The Chief Justice's remarks during the hearing reaffirm that the court will not abandon its review powers but will calibrate the scope of relief to the facts of each case.

Connection to this news: The CJI's hypothetical question about "invasion" directly probes this boundary: asking whether the court can mandate entry, or whether it should only respond to state action — reflecting the tension between judicial activism and restraint in socio-religious matters.

Key Facts & Data

Case name (2018 original): Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala — decided on 28 September 2018 by a 4:1 majority Constitution Bench.
Dissent: Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole dissenter in the 2018 verdict, arguing for judicial restraint in matters of religious faith.
Reference case: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2019) — a five-judge bench referred seven constitutional questions to a nine-judge bench.
Nine-judge bench composition: Includes the CJI and 8 other judges, with gender, regional, and religious representation.
Hearing span: Approximately 14 hearing days, April 7–22, 2026.
Article 25: Guarantees freedom to profess, practise, and propagate religion (subject to public order, morality, health, and other FRs).
Article 26: Grants religious denominations autonomy to manage religious affairs and property.
Article 300A: Protects the right to property — "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." The "invasion" concept referenced by the CJI draws on property/right analogies: just as the state cannot invade property rights without legal authority, a change in religious practice rules without proper authority may constitute an unconstitutional invasion of religious rights.
Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965: Rule 3(b) allowed exclusion of women from certain places of worship based on custom — struck down by the 2018 majority judgment.
The Central Government has supported the review, departing from its earlier neutral position.