Sabarimala Temple Entry Review: Supreme Court’s Nine-Judge Bench Hearing Commences

The Supreme Court of India commenced the final hearing on April 7, 2026, before a nine-judge Constitution bench to review its landmark 2018 verdict that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. The hearing, which began at 10:30 AM, addresses petitions challenging the court’s earlier decision that struck down the traditional ban on women aged between 10 and 50 years from worshipping at the hill shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is presiding over the bench, which includes Justices Joymalya Bagchi, V.M. Pancholi, B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, and Prasanna B. Varale. The bench was constituted specifically to examine the review petitions filed against the September 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, where a five-judge bench by a 4:1 majority held that the exclusionary practice violated constitutional rights to equality and religious freedom.

Background of the Sabarimala Temple Entry Dispute

The Sabarimala Temple, one of the largest annual pilgrimage sites in the world, has historically restricted entry to women of menstruating age based on the belief that Lord Ayyappa, the presiding deity, is a celibate (naishtika brahmachari). This practice was challenged in court as discriminatory under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Indian Constitution.

In September 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional, stating that devotion cannot be gender-based and that the restriction violated the fundamental right to worship. However, the judgment triggered widespread protests and violence in Kerala, leading to multiple review petitions. In November 2019, a five-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration, and in February 2020, a nine-judge bench upheld that referral.

The current hearing marks the first substantive arguments on the review after more than five years of pendency. The court is examining seven specific questions framed for consideration, including the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution (dealing with freedom of religion and management of religious affairs), the scope of “morality” under Article 25, the extent of judicial review in identifying essential religious practices, and whether Lord Ayyappa devotees constitute a distinct religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26.

Proceedings on Day One of the Hearing

On the opening day, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, argued that restricting entry based on gender and age does not constitute discrimination. He emphasized that social reform should be enacted by the legislature, not the judiciary, and that the court’s role is limited to judicial review rather than initiating social change. Mehta contended that the 2018 verdict failed to account for the diversity and plurality within Hindu traditions.

Mehta further stated that the issue involves deeply held religious beliefs and that the court must exercise restraint when assessing practices tied to faith. He referenced the need to distinguish between constitutional morality and popular notions of morality, suggesting that the latter should not override protected religious customs unless they violate fundamental rights in a manner that justifies intervention.

The bench also heard initial arguments from petitioners supporting the review, who maintained that the 2018 judgment interfered with an essential religious practice of the Ayyappa devotees, who they argue form a separate religious denomination. They contended that the temple’s customs are integral to its identity and that judicial interference undermines the autonomy of religious denominations under Article 26.

Significance of the Nine-Judge Bench

The constitution of a nine-judge bench underscores the gravity of the questions before the court. Such large benches are rare and reserved for cases involving substantial constitutional interpretation with far-reaching implications. The Sabarimala review is currently one of only two pending nine-judge bench matters before the Supreme Court, the other concerning the definition of “industry” under labor laws.

Legal experts note that the outcome could redefine the balance between religious freedom and judicial intervention in matters of faith, particularly regarding the authority of courts to assess essential religious practices. The hearing is scheduled to continue in phases, with review petitioners presenting arguments from April 7 to 9, opposing parties from April 17 to 22, and rejoinder submissions on April 21.

Key Constitutional Questions Under Consideration

The nine-judge bench will deliberate on the following core issues:

• The relationship between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 and other fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution.
• The scope and meaning of “public order, morality, and health” as grounds for regulating religious practice under Article 25(1).
• Whether the term “morality” in Articles 25 and 26 includes constitutional morality or is limited to societal morality.
• The extent of judicial power to determine what constitutes an essential religious practice.
• The interpretation of “sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b) and whether it permits state intervention for social reform.
• Whether essential religious practices are protected from state interference under Article 26.
• Whether devotees of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala constitute a distinct religious denomination entitled to autonomy in managing their affairs.

The court’s decision will have lasting implications for how religious customs are evaluated under the Indian constitutional framework, particularly concerning gender-based restrictions in places of worship.

Frequently Asked Questions