The Sabarimala case represents one of the most significant “clashes of values” in Indian constitutional history. It pits the Right to Equality against the Right to Religious Freedom, forcing the Supreme Court to decide where the State’s power to regulate religion ends and the individual’s right to worship begins.
As of April 2026, a nine-judge Constitution Bench is actively conducting final hearings on a reference arising from the 2018 judgment in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association through its General Secretary and connected matters.
1. The Core Legal Conflict
The case revolves around the legal clash between specific Articles of the Constitution:
- Articles 14 & 15: Guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on the ground of sex.
- Article 17: Abolishes “untouchability” in any form.
- Article 25: Guarantees the individual right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion.
- Article 26: Guarantees a “religious denomination” the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
The immediate subject matter was Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which was challenged by the Indian Young Lawyers Association in a Writ Petition filed in 2006 before the Supreme Court (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1).
The Majority View (4:1) of the 2018 Judgment
The Constitution Bench struck down Rule 3(b), holding that:
- Deity vs. Devotee: The “celibacy of the deity” cannot override the fundamental right of a woman devotee to worship.
- Exclusion as Discrimination: The exclusion of women aged 10–50 years was held to be based solely on a physiological characteristic (menstruation), amounting to a form of discrimination akin to “untouchability” under Article 17.
- Denominational Status Denied: The Court ruled that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate “religious denomination” under Article 26, as they are part of the larger Hindu faith, without a distinct name, organisation, or common religious tenets of their own.
The 2018 Dissent (Justice Indu Malhotra)
Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole dissenter, held that in a secular polity, courts must exercise restraint and ought not to interfere in matters of faith unless the practice amounts to a social evil such as Sati. She held that “constitutional morality” in a pluralistic society must encompass the freedom to practise even those beliefs that may appear irrational to an outside observer. She also held that non-devotees lack the locus standi to challenge such practices by way of PIL.
2. The Road to the Nine-Judge Reference
On 14 November 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi (3:2 majority) held that the issues raised in the review petitions were not confined to Sabarimala alone but raised broader, recurring questions of constitutional interpretation affecting multiple faiths. The Court referred seven substantial questions of law to a larger bench.
On 10 February 2020, a nine-judge Constitution Bench upheld the decision to make this reference.
The reference has since expanded to include 66 tagged matters, encompassing:
- The right of Muslim women to enter mosques and dargahs;
- The right of Parsi women to enter Agiary (Fire Temples) after marrying outside the community;
- The validity of female genital mutilation (FGM) among the Dawoodi Bohra community; and
- The practice of excommunication (Haq-e-Ilm-e-Nikah) in the Dawoodi Bohra community (referred additionally in February 2023).
3. The Seven Key Legal Issues Before the Nine-Judge Bench
| Legal Issue | The Core Question |
|---|---|
| Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Doctrine | Can secular courts determine what is “essential” to a religion? The Centre has urged the Court to reconsider or scrap this test. |
| Constitutional Morality | Does the word “morality” in Articles 25 and 26 refer to public/popular morality (prevailing customs) or constitutional morality (equality, dignity, secularism)? |
| Religious Denomination | What qualifies a group as a “denomination” under Article 26? Must it have a separate name and organisation, or can it be deity-centric in character? |
| Locus Standi in PILs | Can a stranger or non-believer challenge a religious custom through a Public Interest Litigation? |
| Interplay of Fundamental Rights | Are Article 26 (collective denominational) rights subject to Article 25 (individual) and Articles 14–15 (equality) rights? |
| Judicial Review of Religious Practices | What are the limits of judicial review in matters that are purely matters of faith and doctrine? |
| Scope of Article 17 | Can the concept of “untouchability” under Article 17 extend to exclusions based on biological processes such as menstruation? |
4. Current Status (April 2026)
The nine-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India 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, commenced hearings on 7 April 2026.
The schedule fixed by the Court is as follows:
- 7–9 April 2026: Arguments by review petitioners and parties supporting the review.
- 14–16 April 2026: Arguments by original writ petitioners and parties opposing the review.
- 21 April 2026: Rejoinder submissions.
- 22 April 2026: Final and concluding submissions by the amicus curiae.
The Supreme Court appointed Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar and Advocate Shivam Singh as amici curiae.
Key positions of parties:
- Written submissions filed on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board have urged the Court to adopt a “community-centric” understanding of religion, arguing that courts should refrain from reinterpreting faith-based practices and questioning the continued application of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine.
- The Travancore Devaswom Board has also contended that the restriction at Sabarimala is not based on caste but is directly linked to the unique Naishtika Brahmacharya (eternal celibacy) character of the deity, making it a matter of religious doctrine rather than social discrimination.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, has informed the Court that the Centre supports the review petitions.
- The Kerala State’s position, as reiterated by the Devaswom Minister, is that it stands with devotees and will abide by the Supreme Court’s final decision, consistent with the affidavit it filed in 2007.
5. Why This Case Matters
This case will fundamentally define the constitutional relationship between the State and religious institutions in India. The nine-judge bench’s ruling will determine:
- Whether the Essential Religious Practices doctrine, fashioned judicially since Shirur Mutt [(1954) SCR 1005], continues as the governing test or is to be replaced;
- The extent to which individual fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 17, 25) can override the collective autonomy of religious denominations under Article 26;
- Whether “constitutional morality,” as a concept, prevails over popular or community morality in matters of personal faith and religious custom.
The reference is no longer confined to Sabarimala or to Hinduism alone. Its outcome will set binding precedent for religious practices across all faiths in India, making it among the most consequential constitutional adjudications since Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225].
