Supreme Court to Hear Sabarimala Reference Before 9‑Judge Constitution Bench from April 7, 2026

The Supreme Court will hear the Sabarimala reference before a nine‑judge Constitution Bench starting 7 April 2026, examining the interplay of Articles 25 and 26, essential religious practices, and judicial review. The outcome will shape constitutional jurisprudence on religious freedom, gender equality, and state intervention, a key topic for UPSC Polity.

Overview The Supreme Court will commence hearing the Sabarimala reference on 7 April 2026 . A nine‑judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant will preside over the case. Key Developments Bench composition: CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The reference expands beyond the Sabarimala dispute to examine the interaction of Article 25 with other fundamental rights such as equality and dignity. Inter‑faith interventions: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board and several Jain organisations have filed written submissions. The bench will address seven questions framed in February 2020, covering the scope of Article 26 , the meaning of ‘morality’, and the extent of judicial review over essential religious practices. Important Facts In September 2018, a 4:1 majority of the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple, striking down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules 1965. The decision sparked numerous review petitions. On 14 November 2019, a five‑judge bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi held that similar issues arose in cases concerning women’s entry in mosques, female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohras, and Parsi women’s rights, and ordered a larger bench to examine the concept of essential religious practices . In January 2020, a nine‑judge bench was constituted (then CJI SA Bobde) and in February it affirmed the maintainability of the reference, framing seven pivotal questions. In February 2023, the bench was also asked to consider the validity of excommunication among Dawoodi Bohras, linking it to the broader Sabarimala review. UPSC Relevance The case sits at the intersection of constitutional law, religious freedom, gender equality, and the limits of state intervention. Understanding Article 25 and Article 26 is essential for GS‑2. The debate over ‘ morality ’ and the scope of judicial review over religious practices provides a practical illustration of the balance between individual rights and collective religious sentiments. Way Forward The bench’s verdict will likely set a precedent for future disputes involving essential religious practices across faiths. A nuanced ruling could clarify whether the state can intervene in practices deemed discriminatory while respecting constitutional morality. Aspirants should monitor the judgment for its articulation of the relationship between Articles 25 and 26, the definition of ‘morality’, and the parameters of judicial review, as these will inform policy debates and future litigation on religious freedom and gender justice.

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India's apex judicial body responsible for interpreting the Constitution and adjudicating disputes of national importance (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> will commence hearing the Sabarimala reference on <strong>7 April 2026</strong>. A nine‑judge <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitution Bench — A larger bench of the Supreme Court, usually comprising at least five judges, constituted to decide matters of constitutional importance (GS2: Polity)">Constitution Bench</span> headed by <strong>Chief Justice of India Surya Kant</strong> will preside over the case.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Bench composition: CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.</li> <li>The reference expands beyond the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala temple — A prominent Hindu shrine in Kerala where women of menstruating age were historically barred from entry (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> dispute to examine the interaction of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> with other fundamental rights such as equality and dignity.</li> <li>Inter‑faith interventions: The <span class="key-term" data-definition="All India Muslim Personal Law Board — A statutory body representing Muslim personal law interests in India (GS2: Polity)">All India Muslim Personal Law Board</span> and several Jain organisations have filed written submissions.</li> <li>The bench will address seven questions framed in February 2020, covering the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — Provides religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>, the meaning of ‘morality’, and the extent of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial review — The power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions (GS2: Polity)">judicial review</span> over essential religious practices.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>In September 2018, a 4:1 majority of the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple, striking down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules 1965. The decision sparked numerous review petitions. On 14 November 2019, a five‑judge bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi held that similar issues arose in cases concerning women’s entry in mosques, female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohras, and Parsi women’s rights, and ordered a larger bench to examine the concept of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential religious practices — Rituals or customs considered fundamental to a religion, whose interference may be restricted by the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">essential religious practices</span>.</p> <p>In January 2020, a nine‑judge bench was constituted (then CJI SA Bobde) and in February it affirmed the maintainability of the reference, framing seven pivotal questions. In February 2023, the bench was also asked to consider the validity of excommunication among Dawoodi Bohras, linking it to the broader Sabarimala review.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>The case sits at the intersection of constitutional law, religious freedom, gender equality, and the limits of state intervention. Understanding <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — Provides religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span> is essential for GS‑2. The debate over ‘<span class="key-term" data-definition="Morality — In constitutional context, refers to societal standards of right and wrong, which may include constitutional morality beyond personal or religious notions (GS2: Polity)">morality</span>’ and the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial review — The power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions (GS2: Polity)">judicial review</span> over religious practices provides a practical illustration of the balance between individual rights and collective religious sentiments.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The bench’s verdict will likely set a precedent for future disputes involving <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential religious practices — Rituals or customs considered fundamental to a religion, whose interference may be restricted by the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">essential religious practices</span> across faiths. A nuanced ruling could clarify whether the state can intervene in practices deemed discriminatory while respecting constitutional morality. Aspirants should monitor the judgment for its articulation of the relationship between Articles 25 and 26, the definition of ‘morality’, and the parameters of judicial review, as these will inform policy debates and future litigation on religious freedom and gender justice.</p>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay