Supreme Court’s 9‑Judge Bench Hear Sabarimala Case – CJI Surya Kant Leads Deliberations on Constitutional Morality

Key Insight

Supreme Court’s 9‑Judge Bench Re‑examines Sabarimala Verdict, Emphasising Constitutional Morality

Key Facts

1. 9 April 2026: A nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by CJI Surya Kant, heard arguments in the Sabarimala case.
2. The bench examined the conflict between Articles 14, 15, 21 (equality, non‑discrimination, dignity) and Article 25 (freedom of religion).
3. The concept of ‘constitutional morality’ – a transformative approach to reconcile individual rights with religious practices – was a focal point.
4. Justice J Nagarathna highlighted a parallel dispute in the Venkataramana Devaru case, where entry was restricted to Gowda Saraswat Brahmins, raising concerns for Hinduism’s inclusivity.
5. The earlier 2018 Sabarimala verdict had lifted the ban on women of menstruating age; the 2026 hearing revisits its implementation and societal impact.
6. The bench comprises nine senior judges, the largest composition for a single constitutional issue in the Court’s history.

Background

The Sabarimala controversy sits at the intersection of gender equality, religious freedom and the evolving doctrine of constitutional morality, a key theme in GS‑II (Polity) and GS‑IV (Ethics). It tests the Court’s role in transformative constitutionalism and the balance between individual rights and traditional practices.

UPSC Syllabus

• GS4 — Essence, determinants and consequences of Ethics in human actions

Mains Angle

GS‑II: Discuss how the Supreme Court’s use of constitutional morality in the Sabarimala case reflects the tension between gender equality and religious freedom, and its implications for future jurisprudence.