Overview The nine‑judge Supreme Court will soon hear review petitions seeking to overturn its 2018 judgment that opened the Sabarimala Temple to women of all ages. The case pits the traditional essential religious practices test against a newly proposed anti‑exclusion test , raising profound questions about religious freedom and gender equality. Key Developments 2018 verdict delivered by a 4:1 majority, with Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting, upheld women’s right to enter Sabarimala. Majority held that the ban violated fundamental rights and that the temple was not a separate denomination. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud later suggested the anti‑exclusion test to balance religious autonomy with individual dignity. Review petitions filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association aim to reinstate the age‑based restriction. The nine‑judge bench will examine the broader architecture of India’s religious‑freedom clauses. Important Facts The 2018 judgment rested on three findings: (1) devotees of Lord Ayyappa are not a distinct religious denomination; (2) the ban on women aged 10‑50 infringed on the right to freedom of religion; and (3) Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules contravened the Constitution and the parent law guaranteeing free temple access to all Hindus. Justice Malhotra’s dissent argued that a “non‑derogable essential religious practice” can justify exclusion, emphasizing the need to harmonise individual rights with collective customs. UPSC Relevance This case illustrates the tension between individual liberty and communitarian rights , a recurring theme in GS‑2 (Polity). It also highlights judicial tools— the essential‑practice doctrine and the proposed anti‑exclusion test—used to interpret Articles 25‑28 of the Constitution. Understanding these doctrines aids answers on constitutional law, gender justice, and secularism. For GS‑1 (History & Culture), the Sabarimala controversy provides a contemporary example of how religious customs evolve under constitutional scrutiny. For GS‑4 (Ethics), the debate raises questions about the moral limits of state intervention in faith‑based practices. Way Forward If the bench adopts the anti‑exclusion test, future disputes—such as the excommunication of Dawoodi Bohra members or the rights of Parsi women marrying outside the faith—could be resolved by assessing whether a practice harms individual dignity rather than by judging its theological essentiality. This shift would align judicial review more closely with the Constitution’s liberal promise while preserving genuine religious autonomy. Conversely, a revival of the essential‑practice test could reaffirm the judiciary’s role as a theological arbiter, potentially limiting gender‑equality advances. Aspirants should monitor the bench’s reasoning, as it will set precedent for interpreting religious‑freedom clauses across India.