New Delhi, Apr 7 (LAB) The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday commenced hearings in the high-stakes Sabarimala Temple review matter, with a nine-judge Constitution Bench set to examine critical questions on religious freedom, gender equality, and the scope of judicial review under the Constitution.
The matter is being heard by a nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. The hearing dates: April 7 to April 27, 2026. Review Petitions: April 7–9, 2026 . Final Rejoinders & Arguments: April 22–29, 2026
The Court has also appointed nodal officers from both sides to streamline proceedings.
The case pertains to a 2018 Sabarimala Supreme court judgment passed by a five judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra.
The present proceedings arise from challenges to the landmark Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala ruling.
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Bench, by a 4:1 majority, allowed entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple
The Court struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965
The judgment held that exclusion based on biological factors violates constitutional guarantees.
Subsequently, in 2020, a larger Bench held that review petitions are maintainable, leading to the present Constitution Bench reference.
The nine-judge Bench will examine seven crucial questions of law, including: Scope of Article 25, Freedom of religion, Interplay between Article 25 & 26 – Individual vs denominational rights.
Whether denominational rights under Article 26 are subject to other fundamental rights
Meaning of “morality” – Does it include constitutional morality?
Extent of judicial review in religious practices
Interpretation of “sections of Hindus” under Article 25(2)(b)
Whether outsiders can challenge religious practices via PILs
The Court clarified that the outcome will have a pan-India impact, as similar questions arise in other matters in entry of Muslim women into mosques. Rights of Parsi women married outside the community to enter fire temples. Challenge to female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta led arguments on behalf of the Centre.
He argued that India should not be viewed through a Western lens of patriarchy. He submitted that Indian society has historically accorded women a position of reverence.
He contended that, Article 25 (freedom of religion) is distinct from Articles 14 & 15 (equality provisions). The phrase “all persons are equally entitled” reflects secularism, not gender equality
Emphasised that Article 26(b) (denominational rights) may, in certain cases, prevail over Article 25
The Bench engaged actively. Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted the dual nature of Article 25(2), preserving tradition while enabling social reforms.
The CJI observed that the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 will shape constitutional law for decades.
The Bench noted that Article 26 relates to management of religious affairs, not individual conscience
It underscored the need to define the true scope of religious freedom in modern constitutionalism
The Court indicated that it will closely examine written submissions in detail
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan stressed the need to narrowly define “religious denomination”
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising raised preliminary concerns on the maintainability of review petitions
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi urged structured hearings on each constitutional question
The Union Government, in its written submissions, opposed the 2018 ruling as containing “errors apparent on the face of the record”
It argued that Ayyappa devotees qualify as a religious denomination. It maintained that religious practices may be protected unless they violate core constitutional principles
The hearings are expected to redefine the constitutional balance between faith and fundamental rights, particularly, in religious autonomy vs gender equality. Custom vs constitutional morality. Judicial intervention in religious practices.
The matter will continue tomorrow, with the Court indicating that its ruling will have far-reaching consequences for the interpretation of religious freedom in India.
The Bench rose for the day after preliminary submissions, with arguments to continue in the ongoing constitutional marathon./ LAB/SNG