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

On April 9, 2026, a nine‑judge Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant heard arguments on the Sabarimala case, focusing on constitutional morality, gender equality, and the limits of judicial review. The hearing underscores the Court’s role in reconciling religious customs with fundamental rights, a pivotal issue for UPSC Polity.

Overview On April 9, 2026 , the Supreme Court convened a nine‑judge bench to continue hearing the long‑standing Sabarimala case. The bench is chaired by CJI Surya Kant and includes Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Key Developments (as of today) The bench heard arguments from the Solicitor General , who questioned the applicability of constitutional morality in the case. Petitioners argued that the ban on non‑devotees, especially women of menstruating age, violates the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to freedom of religion under Article 25. The Centre raised concerns that recent judgments de‑criminalising adultery and homosexuality were being invoked to expand the doctrine of constitutional morality, potentially over‑reaching judicial review. Bench members emphasized that judicial review is not barred when a practice is deemed superstitious or discriminatory. Important Facts The Sabarimala temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, traditionally restricts entry to women aged 10‑50, citing religious customs. The 2018 Supreme Court verdict lifted the ban, but the matter resurfaced after a petition by a group of devotees seeking to restore the practice. The present hearing marks the third day of arguments, indicating the complexity of balancing religious freedom with gender equality. UPSC Relevance Understanding this case is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) as it illustrates: The role of the Supreme Court in interpreting fundamental rights. The application of constitutional morality versus traditional customs. The limits of judicial review in matters of religion and personal law. The interplay between the judiciary and the executive, highlighted by the Solicitor General 's arguments. Way Forward While the bench has not delivered a verdict, analysts anticipate a nuanced judgment that may reaffirm the 2018 decision, but with clarifications on the scope of constitutional morality . The outcome will set a precedent for future disputes involving religious practices and gender rights, and will be a key reference for UPSC aspirants studying the balance between personal law reforms and constitutional safeguards.

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>On <strong>April 9, 2026</strong>, the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and safeguards fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> convened a nine‑judge bench to continue hearing the long‑standing <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala reference — a constitutional petition challenging the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple, raising issues of gender equality and religious freedom (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> case. The bench is chaired by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant — the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, responsible for constituting benches and steering judicial policy (GS2: Polity)">CJI Surya Kant</span> and includes Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.</p> <h3>Key Developments (as of today)</h3> <ul> <li>The bench heard arguments from the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General — the chief legal adviser to the Government of India, representing the Union in Supreme Court matters (GS2: Polity)">Solicitor General</span>, who questioned the applicability of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional morality — a principle that the Constitution’s spirit should guide interpretation, superseding social customs or majoritarian views (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span> in the case.</li> <li>Petitioners argued that the ban on non‑devotees, especially women of menstruating age, violates the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to freedom of religion under Article 25.</li> <li>The Centre raised concerns that recent judgments de‑criminalising adultery and homosexuality were being invoked to expand the doctrine of constitutional morality, potentially over‑reaching judicial review.</li> <li>Bench members emphasized that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial review — the power of courts to examine the legality of legislative and executive actions against the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">judicial review</span> is not barred when a practice is deemed superstitious or discriminatory.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The Sabarimala temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, traditionally restricts entry to women aged 10‑50, citing religious customs. The 2018 Supreme Court verdict lifted the ban, but the matter resurfaced after a petition by a group of devotees seeking to restore the practice. The present hearing marks the third day of arguments, indicating the complexity of balancing religious freedom with gender equality.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding this case is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) as it illustrates:</p> <ul> <li>The role of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — apex court that safeguards constitutional rights and resolves inter‑governmental disputes (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> in interpreting fundamental rights.</li> <li>The application of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional morality — guiding principle for interpreting the Constitution, especially when social customs clash with fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span> versus traditional customs.</li> <li>The limits of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial review — authority of courts to invalidate laws or executive actions that contravene the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">judicial review</span> in matters of religion and personal law.</li> <li>The interplay between the judiciary and the executive, highlighted by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General — senior law officer representing the Union in Supreme Court, often shaping the government's legal stance (GS2: Polity)">Solicitor General</span>'s arguments.</li> </ul> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>While the bench has not delivered a verdict, analysts anticipate a nuanced judgment that may reaffirm the 2018 decision, but with clarifications on the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="constitutional morality — principle ensuring that constitutional values guide legal interpretation, especially in socially sensitive issues (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span>. The outcome will set a precedent for future disputes involving religious practices and gender rights, and will be a key reference for UPSC aspirants studying the balance between personal law reforms and constitutional safeguards.</p>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay