Supreme Court Schedules 9-Judge Sabarimala Review Hearing April 2026

In a significant development for Indian constitutional law, the Supreme Court of India has directed the constitution of a 9-judge Constitution Bench to commence hearings on April 7, 2026, in the long-pending review of the landmark 2018 Sabarimala judgment. This bench will address not only the contentious issue of women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple but also broader questions on religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The 3-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, fixed a detailed timeline culminating on April 22, 2026, marking the resumption of arguments after a nearly five-year hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the Centre explicitly supporting the review, this hearing promises to be a watershed moment in balancing individual rights against religious autonomy.

Genesis of the Sabarimala Controversy

The Sabarimala saga traces its roots to a 2006 public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, challenging the age-old custom prohibiting women aged 10 to 50—deemed to be of menstruating age—from entering the Lord Ayyappa temple in Kerala’s Western Ghats. Rooted in centuries-old oral traditions portraying Lord Ayyappa as a celibate deity, the restriction was upheld by the Kerala High Court in 1991 as a non-discriminatory religious practice.

The matter reached a 5-judge Constitution Bench in 2017 amid shifting stances from Kerala governments. On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court delivered a 4:1 majority verdict striking down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, as unconstitutional. Then-CJI Dipak Misra, speaking for the majority with Justices R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, and D.Y. Chandrachud, held that "devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination" , rejecting the notion of Ayyappa devotees as a separate religious denomination and emphasizing equality under Article 14.

Justice Indu Malhotra’s lone dissent was poignant: she argued that "notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion" and urged judicial restraint in interfering with a faith community’s internal practices. The verdict sparked nationwide protests, and on January 2, 2019, two women—Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga—entered the temple under police protection, prompting strikes and a purification ritual ( shuddhi karan ) by temple authorities.

Path to the Larger Bench: Procedural Milestones

Over 60 review petitions and writ petitions assailed the 2018 decision. On November 14, 2019, a 5-judge bench headed by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi ruled 3:2 to refer larger issues to a bigger bench, observing commonalities with pending cases on Muslim women’s entry into mosques/dargahs, Parsi women’s access to Fire Temples post-interfaith marriage, and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) among the Dawoodi Bohra community. Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and R.F. Nariman dissented, cautioning against tagging unrelated matters.

In January 2020, then-CJI S.A. Bobde constituted a 9-judge bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageshwara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant (now CJI Kant, the sole surviving member). In February 2020, it upheld the reference’s maintainability, affirming that questions of law could be referred to a larger bench even in review proceedings. The bench framed seven seminal questions, drawing from the 1954 Shirur Mutt precedent, which first delineated "essential religious practices" as those ascertainable from a religion’s doctrines, immune from state interference save for public order, morality, and health.

Proceedings stalled due to the pandemic, resurfacing recently before the CJI-led 3-judge bench handling the batched petitions.

The Seven Pivotal Questions

The hearings will dissect these framed issues, each probing the constitutional boundaries of faith:

  1. Scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 : Individual rights to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
  2. Inter-play between Article 25 (personal rights) and Article 26 (denominational rights) : Resolving conflicts between personal freedoms and group autonomy.
  3. Whether Article 26 rights are subject to other Part III provisions beyond public order, morality, health : Potential subjection to equality (Art. 14) or non-discrimination (Art. 15).
  4. Scope of 'morality' under Articles 25-26; inclusion of constitutional morality : Whether secular benchmarks override traditional notions.
  5. Judicial review's extent over Article 25 religious practices : Limits on courts assessing "essentiality."
  6. Meaning of "sections of Hindus" in Article 25(2)(b) : Implications for temple entry reforms.
  7. Locus standi for non-members to challenge practices via PIL : Restricting frivolous interventions.

These questions, rooted in Shirur Mutt , could overhaul the essential practices test, long criticized for judicial overreach.

Scheduled Arguments and Party Stances

The 3-judge bench meticulously outlined the schedule: Review supporters (April 7-9), opponents (April 14-16), rejoinders (April 21), and amicus conclusions (April 22), starting at 10:30 a.m. Parties must file written submissions by March 14, 2026, with nodal counsels—Krishan Kumar Singh for petitioners and AOR Shivam Singh assisting amicus K. Parmeswar—coordinating. The bench stressed adherence, noting "There are some unforeseen bridges which we may have to cross" , underscoring complexities.

Key positions: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta affirmed, "We are supporting the review my lord" , aligning the Union with tradition. Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan echoed support. Pro-entry petitioners, represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Maneka Guruswamy, oppose; Jaideep Gupta appears for Kerala. The bench composition awaits CJI notification.

Interlinked Religious Disputes

Beyond Sabarimala, the bench will consider: - Muslim women’s entry into dargahs/mosques. - Parsi women (married non-Parsis) entering Fire Temples. - FGM and excommunication validity among Dawoodi Bohras (referred in 2023).

This consolidation amplifies stakes, potentially unifying jurisprudence across faiths.

Constitutional Crossroads: Legal Analysis

At heart lies the tension between progressive equality and pluralistic tolerance. The 2018 verdict invoked "constitutional morality" to dismantle patriarchy, but critics decry it as imposing majoritarian secularism on minority customs. Article 25’s non-absolute freedoms (subject to reforms under 25(2)(b)) clash with Article 26’s denominational protections. Judicial review via the essentiality test—whether a practice is "integral" per religious texts—has evolved, but questions persist: Can courts define theology? Does "morality" encompass dignity/equality, or merely societal norms?

The PIL question (Issue 7) could curb activist litigation, fortifying locus standi. Outcomes may affirm Shirur Mutt or expand scrutiny, influencing Art. 14 challenges to customs like triple talaq (already invalidated) or temple hierarchies.

Ramifications for Law and Society

For legal professionals, precedents will guide advising religious bodies, PIL drafting, and fundamental rights litigation. Religious institutions face policy upheavals—temples recalibrating entry, communities defending rites. Societally, it pits #MeToo-era gender justice against cultural preservation, potentially easing women’s access while safeguarding autonomy.

Practitioners must clear calendars; the bench deemed it "more important than anything else." Post-verdict, expect implementation challenges akin to 2019’s unrest.

Outlook: A Defining Moment

As CJI Kant—the last link to the 2020 bench—oversees revival, April 2026 hearings could eternalize or eclipse the 2018 legacy. Resolving these "questions of law that remain pending," per the order, promises clarity on India’s secular fabric, where devotion meets dignity. Legal eagles await a verdict harmonizing faith’s essence with constitutional ethos.