NewKerala.com

Supreme Court's 9-Judge Bench to Hear Landmark Sabarimala Case from April 7

The Supreme Court has constituted a nine-judge Constitution Bench to commence hearings on the Sabarimala temple entry case from April 7, 2025. The hearings will revisit the 2018 ruling that permitted women of all ages to enter the temple, striking down a centuries-old tradition. The case raises broader constitutional questions on the interplay between religious freedom, equality, and constitutional morality. The Union of India is supporting the review petitions challenging the 2018 verdict.

Key Points: Supreme Court Sabarimala Hearing: 9-Judge Bench from April 7

  • 9-judge Constitution Bench to hear case
  • Hearings scheduled from April 7-22
  • Revisits 2018 ruling on women's entry
  • Broader questions on religious freedom & equality
  • Union of India supports review petitions
2 min read

Supreme Court constitutes 9-judge bench to hear Sabarimala entry case from April 7

Supreme Court sets April 7 hearing for Sabarimala temple entry case before a 9-judge bench, revisiting religious freedom vs equality.

"The nodal counsels... shall prepare the internal arrangement so that oral submissions from both sides can be heard within the stipulated timeline - Supreme Court"

New Delhi, February 16

The Supreme Court of India is set to commence hearings in the long-pending Sabarimala temple entry matter, alongside a batch of connected cases that raise broader constitutional questions on religious freedom and its interplay with equality and constitutional morality.

The proceedings scheduled before a nine-judge Constitution Bench are expected to revisit key issues surrounding essential religious practices, equality, and constitutional morality.

Fixing a schedule, the apex Court directed that hearings will begin at 10:30 AM on April 7. Reviews of petitioners and supporting parties will be heard from April 7 to April 9, followed by original writ petitioners from April 14 to 16. Rejoinders, if any, will be heard on April 22. The court emphasised strict adherence to timelines.

"The nodal counsels in consultation with arguing counsel of the parties shall prepare the internal arrangement so that oral submissions from both sides can be heard within the stipulated timeline", the apex Court noted.

The Union of India is among those supporting the review petitions, effectively challenging the 2018 ruling, while the original writ petitioners are seeking to uphold it.

The case dates back to 2018, when a Constitution Bench had permitted entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, striking down the centuries-old tradition barring women between the ages of 10 and 50 years old.

In February 10, 2020, a nine-judge Bench upheld the decisions of the Sabarimala Review Bench to refer broader constitutional questions to a larger forum.

Earlier in the day, Kerala Minister of Law P Rajeev said the Sabarimala matter is currently limited to the constitution of a new Bench. Speaking to reporters, Rajeev said, "Earlier, the direction on the review petition was to constitute a constitution bench to review the earlier verdict. This is only an opportunity to constitute a new constitutional bench to review the existing verdict. After that, we can discuss what is to be done on the basis of the directions of the Supreme Court."

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rajesh Q
Finally some movement on this! The delay has been frustrating. The court must decide once and for all on the balance between religious practices and fundamental rights. A 9-judge bench shows how serious this issue is.
A
Aman W
As a devotee, I feel the traditions of Sabarimala should be respected. It's not about discrimination but about the specific nature of the deity and the beliefs of millions. The court should be careful not to interfere in matters of deep faith.
S
Sarah B
Watching from abroad, this is a fascinating case. The interplay of equality, religious freedom, and tradition is complex. I hope the proceedings are thorough and the final judgment brings clarity, not more confusion.
V
Vikram M
The Union government supporting the review is interesting. This isn't just a legal issue; it's deeply political. The court's strict timeline is good, but I worry the final decision might get lost in the noise of the upcoming elections.
N
Nisha Z
Respectfully, I must disagree with the 2018 verdict's implementation. The court gave a ruling, but the social and practical challenges on the ground were immense. Maybe this larger bench can find a more nuanced path that respects both law and local sentiment.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50