Supreme Court 9‑Judge Bench Continues Hearing on Sabarimala Constitutional Issues – Day 2

Key Insight

Supreme Court probes who can challenge religious customs: the Sabarimala standing debate

Key Facts

1. The Supreme Court formed a 9‑judge bench to hear the Sabarimala PILs (2026).
2. Core issue: locus standi of non‑devotees to challenge religious practices under Articles 25 and 26.
3. Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned standing of outsiders.
4. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued that dismissal solely on petitioner’s identity would set a dangerous precedent.
5. The reference has been pending for almost two decades, originating from the 2006 petition challenging Sabarimala’s entry ban.
6. The bench includes judges from both the majority and dissenting benches of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.

Background

The debate sits at the intersection of constitutional morality, religious freedom and gender equality – key themes in GS‑II. It tests the limits of PILs and the principle that only those directly affected may question internal religious matters, a question that shapes future jurisprudence on fundamental rights.

UPSC Syllabus

• GS2 — Constitutional posts, bodies and their powers and functions

Mains Angle

GS‑II: Discuss how the Supreme Court balances Articles 25 & 26 with Articles 14 & 15 in the Sabarimala standing controversy, and evaluate the role of a constitutional bench in safeguarding constitutional morality.