9-Judge Bench to Hear Sabarimala Women Entry Case from April 7

What Is the Sabarimala Case?

The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala has been at the centre of a major constitutional debate over women’s entry into places of worship. In 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the temple, striking down the earlier practice that barred women between 10 and 50 years of age.

The ruling triggered widespread protests and legal challenges. Several review petitions were filed against the 2018 verdict, leading to a larger constitutional examination of religious freedom, equality, and the scope of judicial review.

Now, the Supreme Court has announced that a nine-judge Constitution Bench will begin hearing the matter from April 7, with a tight schedule to conclude arguments by April 22.

What Has the Court Decided Now?

A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, has posted the matter before a nine-judge Bench.

The Court has fixed a structured hearing schedule:

• April 7 to April 9 – Arguments from those seeking review of the 2018 verdict
• April 14 to April 16 – Arguments from those opposing the review
• April 21 – Rejoinders (responses to arguments)
• Followed by concluding submissions

The hearings will begin at 10:30 AM on April 7, and the Court has asked all lawyers to strictly follow the time schedule. Written submissions must be filed by March 14.

Who Will Represent the Parties?

• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, has supported the review petitions.
• Advocate Krishna Kumar Singh has been appointed as nodal counsel for parties supporting the review.
• Advocate Shashwati Pari has been named nodal counsel for those opposing the review.
• Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, along with Shivam Singh, has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court.

Why Is There a Nine-Judge Bench?

This is not the first time such a Bench has been constituted.

In 2019, a nine-judge Bench was set up to examine broader constitutional questions arising from the Sabarimala case and similar disputes. However, that Bench lapsed after eight of its members retired. The only member who remained was Justice Surya Kant, who later became Chief Justice.

Now, the matter is being revived before a freshly constituted nine-judge Bench.

How Did the Case Reach This Stage?

After the 2018 verdict allowing women’s entry, review petitions were filed. In November 2019, a five-judge Bench delivered a 3-2 ruling stating that certain constitutional questions arising in the Sabarimala case were common to other pending cases.

These included issues relating to:

• Muslim women’s entry into mosques
• Parsi women’s entry into Fire Temples after marrying non-Parsi individuals
• The validity of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community

The Court observed that before deciding the Sabarimala review petitions, it was necessary to settle larger questions about “essential religious practices” and the Court’s power to intervene in religious matters.

In January 2020, a nine-judge Bench was formally constituted. In February 2020, it held that such constitutional questions could indeed be referred to a larger Bench even during review proceedings.

What Are the Key Constitutional Questions?

The nine-judge Bench has framed several important questions. One question regarding the Court’s jurisdiction has already been settled. The remaining major issues include:

Can Outsiders Challenge Religious Practices?

Whether a person who does not belong to a particular religious denomination can challenge its practices through public interest litigation.

This question directly affects who has the standing to bring such cases before courts.

What Is the Scope of Judicial Review Under Article 25?

Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The Court will examine:

• How far courts can review religious practices
• Whether every religious custom is protected
• Whether only “essential religious practices” are protected

What Does “Morality” Mean Under Articles 25 and 26?

The Constitution allows religious freedom subject to “public order, morality and health.”

The Court must now decide:

• Does “morality” mean social morality?
• Or does it include constitutional morality, which prioritises equality and fundamental rights?

This question lies at the heart of the Sabarimala controversy.

What Is the Extent of Religious Freedom Under Article 25?

The Bench will examine the boundaries of individual religious freedom and whether it is absolute or subject to other constitutional principles.

How Do Articles 25 and 26 Interact?

Article 25 protects individual religious freedom.
Article 26 protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.

The Court will determine how these rights interact when they appear to conflict.

Are Denominational Rights Absolute?

The Bench will examine whether rights under Article 26 are subject only to public order, morality and health — or whether they are also subject to other fundamental rights like equality under Article 14.

What Does “Sections of Hindus” Mean Under Article 25(2)(b)?

Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to throw open Hindu religious institutions to “all classes and sections of Hindus.”

The Court will clarify what this phrase means and whether it includes women of all age groups in the Sabarimala context.

Why This Hearing Is Important

The outcome of this case will not only determine the future of women’s entry at Sabarimala but may also:

• Redefine the doctrine of essential religious practices
• Clarify the limits of judicial review in religious matters
• Shape how courts interpret constitutional morality
• Impact disputes involving other religious communities

The decision could have far-reaching implications for the balance between religious freedom and gender equality in India.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court has given itself a two-week window from April 7 to April 22 to complete the hearings. After arguments conclude, the Court will reserve its judgment.

The nine-judge Bench’s ruling is expected to become a significant constitutional precedent, possibly settling long-pending questions about religion and fundamental rights in India.

For now, all eyes are on April 7, when the constitutional debate resumes in one of India’s most closely watched legal battles.