Supreme Court’s Nine‑Judge Bench Reviews Sabarimala Verdict – Seven Constitutional Questions on Religion, Equality & Morality

The apex Supreme Court has reconvened a nine‑judge constitution bench to re‑examine the 2018 Sabarimala judgment. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant , is addressing seven focused questions that cut across the core pillars of religious freedom, equality and morality in the Indian Constitution. Key Developments (since April 7 2026) Re‑opening of the Sabarimala case by a seven‑judge bench (2019) and its expansion to a nine‑judge bench (2026) to consider broader constitutional issues. Formulation of seven specific questions ranging from the scope of Article 25 to the meaning of “sections of Hindus” in the Constitution. Continued debate on whether the exclusion of women from Sabarimala is an ERP and whether the devotees form a distinct Religious Denomination . Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent in 2018, emphasizing that equality under Article 14 cannot override the fundamental right to religion under Article 25. Important Facts The 2018 judgment (4:1 majority) struck down the ban on women of menstruating age under Kerala’s Rule 3(b), citing violations of Articles 15(1) and 25(1). The bench is examining the interplay between individual rights (Articles 14, 15, 17) and collective rights of religious bodies (Article 26). One of the questions probes whether morality in Articles 25 and 26 includes the concept of “constitutional morality” – a principle that the Constitution itself embodies. The review also asks if a person outside a religious denomination can file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging that denomination’s practice. UPSC Relevance Understanding these questions is essential for GS 2 (Polity) as they illustrate how the Constitution balances individual liberties with collective religious rights. The case provides a live example of judicial interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 17, 25 and 26, and highlights the doctrine of “constitutional morality” – a recurring theme in recent Supreme Court pronouncements. Aspirants should be able to discuss the ERP doctrine, the criteria for a religious denomination (common faith, organization, distinct name), and the limits of state intervention under Article 25(2). Way Forward While the bench deliberates, scholars anticipate a nuanced verdict that may: (i) reaffirm that exclusion based on biological factors breaches equality guarantees; (ii) clarify the extent of “morality” and “constitutional morality” in religious matters; and (iii) set a precedent on who can challenge religious practices via PILs. For UPSC preparation, candidates should track the final judgment, compare it with earlier cases such as Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954) and S P Mittal v. Union of India (1982), and be ready to analyse the evolving scope of judicial review in matters of faith.