The constitutional debate surrounding the entry of women into the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is set to return to judicial scrutiny, as a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India will begin hearings on a batch of review petitions from April 7, 2026. The proceedings mark a significant development in one of the most consequential religious freedom and gender equality disputes in contemporary Indian constitutional law.
The case stems from the apex court’s landmark 2018 judgment, which permitted the entry of women of all age groups into the hill shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, overturning a decades-old practice that barred women between the ages of 10 and 50. The restriction had traditionally been justified on the basis of the celibate nature of the deity and long-standing religious customs followed by devotees.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled by a 4–1 majority that the exclusion of women of menstruating age violated constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and freedom of worship. The judgment held that religious practices must conform to fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 15, and 25.
The ruling triggered widespread debate across the country, particularly in Kerala, where protests and counter-protests reflected deep divisions between advocates of gender justice and defenders of religious tradition. Multiple review petitions were subsequently filed, challenging the judgment and raising broader constitutional questions concerning the relationship between faith-based practices and judicial review.
On February 10, 2020, the Supreme Court decided to refer the matter to a larger bench without staying the 2018 verdict. The court observed that the issues raised extended beyond Sabarimala and touched upon wider questions relating to religious freedoms, essential religious practices, and judicial intervention in matters of faith across different religions.
The reference effectively expanded the scope of the case to examine constitutional principles governing religious autonomy, denominational rights, and the balance between equality and religious freedom.
In its latest order, the Supreme Court has laid down a detailed schedule for the hearings. According to the court:
Review petitioners and parties supporting them will present arguments from April 7 to April 9, 2026, beginning at 10:30 a.m.
Parties opposing the review petitions will be heard from April 14 to April 16.
Rejoinder submissions, if required, will be taken up on April 21.
Final and concluding submissions by the court-appointed amicus curiae are expected to conclude proceedings on April 22.
The court has directed all parties to complete written submissions by March 14 and instructed nodal counsels to coordinate internal arrangements to ensure oral arguments remain within the prescribed timeline.
Legal experts view the upcoming hearings as pivotal because the nine-judge bench is expected to address foundational constitutional doctrines, including the scope of the “essential religious practices” test, the extent of judicial oversight over religious customs, and how courts should reconcile competing fundamental rights.
The outcome could influence not only the Sabarimala dispute but also future cases involving religious traditions, gender equality, and minority rights. Observers note that the court’s eventual ruling may redefine the boundaries between constitutional morality and religious autonomy in India’s pluralistic society.
While the controversy began with access to a single shrine, the broader questions raised have transformed the litigation into a defining constitutional moment. The forthcoming hearings are likely to revisit fundamental tensions within Indian democracy — between tradition and reform, faith and equality, and community practices and individual rights.
As the nine-judge bench convenes in April, the nation’s attention will once again turn to how constitutional principles are interpreted in matters where religion and rights intersect, potentially shaping the jurisprudential landscape for decades to come.
Leave Your Comment