Supreme Court Forms 9-Judge Bench to Review Sabarimala, Religious Freedom Cases

The Supreme Court has constituted a nine-judge bench to review the 2018 Sabarimala temple entry judgment and a batch of connected cases raising fundamental constitutional questions. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, will examine the interplay between the right to equality and the right to freedom of religion across multiple faiths. The hearings, scheduled to begin on April 7, 2026, will also address issues like the entry of Muslim women into mosques and the rights of Parsi women marrying outside the community. This judicial review represents a pivotal moment for defining the limits of religious practices and constitutional morality in India.

Key Points: SC 9-Judge Bench to Review Sabarimala, Religious Freedom Issues

  • Review of 2018 Sabarimala women's entry ruling
  • Examines religious freedom vs. gender equality
  • Includes cases on Muslim women in mosques & Parsi temple entry
  • Bench led by CJI Surya Kant
3 min read

Supreme Court forms nine-judge bench to review Sabarimala temple entry case

Supreme Court forms a 9-judge bench to review Sabarimala temple entry and broader questions on religious freedom, gender equality, and constitutional rights.

"A nine-judge bench shall commence hearing in these matters on April 7, 2026 - Supreme Court Order"

New Delhi, April 5

The Supreme Court on Saturday notified the setting up of a nine-judge bench to review the long-pending Sabarimala temple entry matter, along with a batch of connected cases that raise larger constitutional questions on the scope and ambit of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths across the country.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi, B V Nagarathna, R Mahadevan, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, and Prasanna B Varale, is scheduled to commence hearings from April 7.

In 2018, a Constitution Bench of the apex court permitted the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, striking down the centuries-old practice that barred women between the ages of 10 and 50.

On November 14, 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a 3:2 majority, held that the issues arising in the review petitions against the Sabarimala judgment were not confined to the temple alone, but raised broader and recurring questions of constitutional interpretation concerning the interplay between the right to equality and the right to freedom of religion.

The Court identified a set of overlapping constitutional issues that also arose in other pending matters. These included: (i) the permissibility of restricting the entry of Muslim women into mosques, particularly the challenge to practices that bar women from offering prayers in certain Islamic places of worship; (ii) the validity of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohra community, examined in light of dignity and essential religious practices and (iii) the rights of Parsi women who marry outside the community to enter Parsi Fire Temples.

The majority observed that these cases raised common constitutional questions, such as: the scope and ambit of the "essential religious practices" doctrine; the extent to which courts can judicially review religious customs claimed to be integral to a faith; the balance between individual fundamental rights, particularly equality, dignity, and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15, and the collective rights of religious denominations under Articles 25 and 26; and the permissible limits of exclusionary practices in religious spaces.

Subsequently, a nine-judge Constitution Bench on February 10, 2020, upheld the decision of the Sabarimala Review Bench to refer to a larger Bench broad questions concerning the interplay between essential religious practices, equality, and constitutional morality across faiths.

In February 2026, the top court had, while fixing a schedule for the hearings, noted,

"A nine-judge bench shall commence hearing in these matters on April 7, 2026 (Tuesday) at 10:30 AM. The review petitioners or the parties supporting them shall be heard from April 7-9, April 2026. The original writ petitioners opposing the review petitioners shall be heard on April 14-16, 2026. The rejoinder submissions, if any, will be heard on April 21, 2026, followed by the final and concluding submissions by the learned amicus, which is expected to be over by April 22. The parties shall adhere to the above time schedule. 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 Union of India (Centre), along with other parties are supporting the review petitions, effectively challenging the 2018 ruling that allowed the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple.

The original writ petitioners (now respondents) in the review proceedings are opposing the review pleas and seeking to uphold the 2018 judgment.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Ramesh W
Finally! The 2018 judgment disregarded centuries of tradition and the unique nature of Lord Ayyappa's worship. The deity is a *naishtika brahmachari* (eternal celibate). The restriction is not about discrimination but about preserving the sanctity of a specific religious practice. The court must respect this.
A
Anjali F
As a woman, I support the 2018 verdict. Why should age or gender be a barrier to devotion? This review feels like a step backwards. The court should focus on implementing the existing judgment rather than reopening the debate. Equality before the law must mean something.
S
Siddharth J
The composition of the bench looks impressive. Justices Nagarathna and Varale bring diverse perspectives. This hearing will set a crucial precedent for how India navigates the tricky path between secularism, religious autonomy, and individual rights. A tough but necessary task for the judiciary.
K
Karan T
With all due respect to the Supreme Court, I worry about judicial overreach. Where do we draw the line? If courts start defining what is an 'essential religious practice' for every community, it could lead to unintended consequences and social friction. Sometimes tradition has its own logic.
M
Michael C
Following this from abroad. It's fascinating to see India's robust democratic and legal institutions grapple with such complex issues. Linking Sabarimala with practices in other religions is a bold and intellectually honest approach. The world will be watching this verdict closely.

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

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50