Supreme Court Sabarimala प्रतिबंध की पुनः जाँच – CJI Surya Kant के सामने 7 संवैधानिक प्रश्न

<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes involving fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has reconvened a nine‑judge constitution bench, led by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India Surya Kant — the head of the Indian judiciary, presiding over the nine‑judge bench hearing the Sabarimala review (GS2: Polity)">Chief Justice Surya Kant</span>, to revisit the 2018 verdict on the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala — a prominent Ayyappa temple in Kerala whose entry ban on women of menstruating age sparked a constitutional debate (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> temple. The bench is examining seven pivotal constitutional questions that cut across the themes of religious freedom, equality, and morality.</p> <h3>Key Developments (since April 7, 2026)</h3> <ul> <li>Formation of a nine‑judge bench to review the 2018 <strong>Indian Young Lawyers’ Association vs State of Kerala</strong> judgment.</li> <li>The bench is headed by <strong>CJ Surya Kant</strong>, marking the first time a nine‑judge panel has heard a single religious‑freedom case.</li> <li>Seven specific questions have been framed, ranging from the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III provisions (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> to the meaning of “sections of Hindus” in the Constitution.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Indu Malhotra — the sole female judge on the 2018 bench who argued that equality under Article 14 cannot override the fundamental right to religion (GS2: Polity)">Indu Malhotra</span> had dissented in 2018, emphasizing the primacy of religious freedom.</li> <li>The review bench will also consider similar disputes from other faiths, potentially setting a broader precedent.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts – The Seven Questions</h3> <ol> <li>Scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III provisions (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>.</li> <li>Interplay between individual rights under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III provisions (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and rights of religious denominations under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — confers to every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs, own property and administer its own institutions (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>.</li> <li>Whether rights of