Kerala Government’s Revised Stance on Sabarimala Entry Ban The Kerala Government has softened its earlier unconditional support for allowing women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Temple . In its written submissions to the Supreme Court , the state now urges the Court to consider the "impartial" opinions of social reformers and religious scholars before deciding whether the ban qualifies as an essential religious practice . Key Developments Kerala’s submission emphasizes "previous experience" and the response of devotees, including women, in assessing the ban. The matter will be heard by a nine‑judge Constitution Bench starting 7 April . The bench will review the 2018 five‑judge verdict that held the ban violated Article 25(1) of the Constitution. Important Facts The 2018 judgment by a five‑judge bench struck down the prohibition on women aged 10‑50 from entering the shrine, deeming it unconstitutional. The current review seeks to clarify the scope of "essential religious practice"—a doctrinal test used by courts to balance religious freedom with other fundamental rights. UPSC Relevance Understanding this case is crucial for GS Paper II (Polity) as it deals with constitutional interpretation, judicial review, and the delicate balance between individual rights and religious freedom. The role of state governments in influencing Supreme Court deliberations also illustrates federal‑centre dynamics, a recurring theme in UPSC prelims and mains. Way Forward Legal experts anticipate that the Court may either reaffirm the 2018 decision or carve out a narrower definition of "essential religious practice" that could permit a limited ban. The Kerala Government’s call for inputs from social reformers and religious scholars signals a willingness to blend legal reasoning with societal consensus, a factor that may shape future jurisprudence on religious reforms in India.