Sabarimala reference hearing concludes; Supreme Court reserves judgment

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the Sabarimala reference case after 16 days of extensive hearings; all parties ...

What Happened

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the Sabarimala reference case after 16 days of extensive hearings; all parties were granted liberty to file comprehensive written submissions by May 29, 2026.
The reference arose from the 2018 majority verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple — a ruling that was subsequently referred to a larger bench due to complex constitutional questions.
The Constitution Bench is tasked with deciding seven broader questions on religious freedom, the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, and the interplay between Articles 25, 26, and 14 of the Constitution.
During the hearing, the Amicus Curiae framed religious freedom as a form of "swaraj" and challenged the "elitist" character of the ERP doctrine, while some respondents argued that the Constitution envisages reform within religion rather than by judicial override.
The court was also asked to determine who truly holds the right to enter a temple — the worshippers or the religious denomination managing the institution.

Static Topic Bridges

Articles 25 and 26 — Freedom of Religion and Denominational Rights

Article 25 guarantees every person the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and the other provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights). Article 26 guarantees every religious denomination or section thereof the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, to own and acquire movable and immovable property, and to administer such property.

Article 25(2)(b) expressly permits the State to make laws providing for "social welfare and reform" and for "throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus."
The rights under Article 26 are available to a "religious denomination," which requires: (i) a collection of individuals with a system of beliefs, (ii) a common organisation, and (iii) a designation by a distinctive name.
The rights under both articles are subject to restrictions on grounds of public order, morality, and health.

Connection to this news: The core constitutional question is whether the Sabarimala devotees constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to exclude women under Article 26, or whether the practice of exclusion violates women's individual right to worship under Article 25.

Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine

The Essential Religious Practices test is a judicially evolved standard used to determine which practices of a religion are protected under Article 25. A practice qualifies as "essential" if, without it, the religion itself would be fundamentally altered or destroyed.

The doctrine was first articulated in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), also known as the Shirur Mutt case.
Under ERP, courts examine religious texts, tenets, and historical practices to determine essentiality.
Critics of the doctrine argue that it allows courts to decide matters of theology — effectively making judges the arbiters of what is "essential" to a faith.
The 2018 Sabarimala majority (4:1) held that the exclusion of women was NOT an essential religious practice, as the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination.

Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench is now being asked to reconsider whether the ERP doctrine itself is constitutionally sound — and whether the 2018 majority applied it correctly. The Amicus Curiae challenged the doctrine as "elitist" and insufficiently grounded in lived religious experience.

A central debate in constitutional adjudication of religious practices is the distinction between "constitutional morality" — fidelity to constitutional values — and "popular morality" or social custom. The Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and other cases has held that constitutional morality must prevail over popular morality.

The concept of constitutional morality was invoked in the 2018 Sabarimala majority judgment to hold that gender-based exclusion from a public temple violates Article 14 (equality) and Article 25.
The lone dissent in the 2018 judgment (Justice Indu Malhotra) argued that the court should not interfere with a matter that relates to essential religious practices of a sect, and that the doctrine of constitutional morality cannot override genuine religious freedom.
Article 14 — right to equality — was held by the majority to apply horizontally to deny discriminatory practices even in religious settings open to the public.

Connection to this news: The nine-judge bench's task includes authoritatively settling whether constitutional morality can override religious custom — a question with implications far beyond Sabarimala, touching religious practices involving caste, gender, and community across faiths.

Key Facts & Data

2018 Judgment: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala — 4:1 majority allowed women of all ages into Sabarimala.
Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 — struck down by the 2018 majority as unconstitutional.
Nine-judge Constitution Bench: Required when questions of substantial constitutional importance arise; ordinary Constitution Benches are five-judge benches.
Seven constitutional questions referred: Including the interplay of Articles 14, 25, 26; the scope of the ERP doctrine; and the definition of "religious denomination."
Shirur Mutt case (1954): First formulation of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine.
Article 25(2)(b): Permits state legislation for social welfare reform and opening of Hindu religious institutions to all classes of Hindus.
The Kerala government supported the entry of women; the Travancore Devaswom Board (which manages the Sabarimala temple) opposed it.
Written submissions deadline: May 29, 2026.