Supreme Court’s 9‑Judge Bench Continues Sabarimala Hearing – Emphasis on Constitutional Morality

Overview The Supreme Court is on the fourth day of arguments before a nine‑judge CJI Surya Kant ‑led bench in the long‑standing Sabarimala reference. The bench comprises Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Key Developments (Day 4) Solicitor General questioned whether “constitutional morality” can be invoked to override long‑standing temple customs. The Court asked how non‑devotees of Lord Ayyappa could challenge the Sabarimala entry norms. Bench reiterated that Judicial Review is not barred even when the matter involves “superstitious” practices. The Centre argued that recent verdicts de‑criminalising adultery and homosexuality should not be used to reinterpret Sabarimala’s customs. Separate hearings highlighted that excluding other denominations from temples may affect the broader fabric of Hinduism. It was noted that certain temples traditionally allow only women, a fact the Centre submitted to the Court. Important Facts The bench’s composition reflects a gender‑balanced panel, with Justice BV Nagarathna being the sole female judge. The hearing has repeatedly focused on two thematic strands: (i) the applicability of Constitutional Morality in religious contexts, and (ii) the extent to which temple‑specific customs such as Sampradaya -based restrictions can be overridden by the Constitution. UPSC Relevance For aspirants, the case illustrates the delicate balance between fundamental rights (Article 25‑26) and the autonomy of religious institutions. It underscores the role of the Supreme Court in shaping social policy through constitutional interpretation. The debate on “constitutional morality” is a recurring theme in GS‑2 questions on secularism, personal liberty and the limits of judicial activism. Way Forward While the bench continues to hear arguments, the final judgment is expected to set a precedent on how far the judiciary can intervene in religious customs. Aspirants should monitor the outcome for its impact on future litigation concerning temple entry, gender equality, and the broader discourse on secularism versus religious freedom. Understanding the interplay of Judicial Review and constitutional principles will be crucial for answering both factual and analytical questions in the UPSC examination.