Sabarimala Women Entry: Nine-Judge Supreme Court Bench Begins Landmark Hearings on Religious Freedom

A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, commenced final hearings on April 7, 2026, regarding petitions centered on discrimination against women at religious sites. The proceedings focus heavily on the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala and the broader legal scope of religious freedom in India.

This hearing represents a critical juncture in a long-standing legal battle that pits the fundamental right to equality against the right to manage religious affairs. The court is tasked with determining whether traditional religious practices can override constitutional guarantees of non-discrimination.

The Core Constitutional Conflict: Equality vs. Religious Freedom

At the heart of this case is a tension between two sets of constitutional protections. The Supreme Court is weighing the freedom to manage religious affairs under Articles 25 and 26 against the guarantees of equality and non-discrimination provided under Articles 14 and 15.

The case stems from a 2018 verdict where a five-judge bench, by a 4-1 majority, lifted the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala shrine, declaring the restriction unconstitutional. However, in 2019, a separate five-judge bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred broader questions regarding women’s entry into various places of worship and the nature of religious freedom to a larger bench for consideration.

The Centre’s Argument: The Limits of Judicial Expertise

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, raised significant concerns regarding the court’s capacity to define religious practices. The Centre argues that courts may lack the subject matter expertise required to determine what constitutes an “essential religious practice.”

Key points raised by the Centre include:

• Scriptural Complexity: Identifying essential practices requires a deep examination of evolving belief systems and religious scriptures.
• Religious Plurality: The government contends that a “straight-jacket definition” of a “religious denomination” or “essential practice” would compress the inherently plural nature of Hinduism, which is expressed through diverse sects, spiritual lineages, and regional traditions.
• Precedents of Diversity: To illustrate this plurality, the Centre cited examples such as the Ajmer Dargah and the Shirdi Saibaba temple.

The Union government suggests a more structured approach: first examining the specific practice and then determining if that practice violates constitutional rights, morality, or public order.

The Bench and the Hearing Schedule

The nine-judge bench consists of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.

To ensure a timely resolution, the court has established a strict timeline for submissions:

• April 7 – April 9: Hearings for review petitioners and supporting parties.
• April 14 – April 16: Hearings for those opposing the review.
• April 21: Rejoinder submissions.
• April 22: Final and concluding submissions by the learned amicus.

The court has appointed Krishna Kumar Singh as the nodal counsel for parties supporting the review of the 2018 verdict, and Shashwati Pari as the nodal counsel for those opposing the review.

Key Takeaways

• Current Status: Final hearings began April 7, 2026, before a nine-judge bench.
• Central Issue: Whether the right to manage religious affairs (Articles 25, 26) prevails over equality rights (Articles 14, 15).
• Government Stance: The Centre argues against narrow judicial definitions of “essential practices,” citing the diversity of Hinduism.
• Kerala’s Position: The Kerala government has backed pleas for a review of the 2018 verdict and is seeking a Supreme Court decision informed by the views of reformers and scholars.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the 2018 Sabarimala verdict?

In 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional and illegal.

Why is a nine-judge bench hearing the case now?

In 2019, the Supreme Court referred the broader issues of religious discrimination against women and the scope of religious freedom to a larger bench to provide a more definitive legal framework.

What is an “essential religious practice”?

This is a legal test used by Indian courts to determine which rituals or beliefs are so fundamental to a religion that they are protected under the right to religious freedom, and which are peripheral and can be regulated by the state for the sake of equality or public order.