Sabarimala Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 15]

Update: 2026-05-13 05:01 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

Today is the 15th day of arguments before the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference.Apart from CJI Surya Kant, the Bench comprises Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.Day 1 Report :Not Reviewing...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Today is the 15th day of arguments before the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference.

Apart from CJI Surya Kant, the Bench comprises Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

Day 1 Report :

Sabarimala Reference | Judicial Review Over Superstitious Practices Not Barred, Says Supreme Court In Hearing

Sabarimala Reference | Centre Questions Verdicts Decriminalising Adultery & Homosexuality For Applying 'Constitutional Morality'

Reports from Day 3 Hearing are given below :

Excluding Other Denominations From Temples Will Affect Hinduism : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

Sampradayas Attached To Temple Must Be Followed While Visiting It: Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

There Are Temples Where Only Women Can Go : Centre To Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Reports from Day 4 Hearing are given below :

Difficult To Declare Belief Of Millions Wrong : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

Sabarimala Reference | Can't Hollow Out Religion In The Name Of Social Reform, Supreme Court Says In Hearing

Sabarimala | Visit Of Fertile Women Antithetical To Deity's Identity; They Can Visit Other Ayyappa Temples : TDB To Supreme Court

'Constitutional Morality' In Religious Matters Like A Bull In A China Shop : Singhvi Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Reports from Day 5 hearing :

Women In South Avoid Temples During Menstruation As Matter Of Belief : Lawyer Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Sabarimala Reference | Correct Test Is If Religious Belief Is Bona Fide, Not If It's Essential : Rajeev Dhavan To Supreme Court

Day 6 hearing reports :

Sabarimala Reference | If Believer Prevented From Touching Deity Only Due To Birth, Can't Constitution Intervene? Supreme Court Asks

Sabarimala Reference | Supreme Court Debates Essential Religious Practice Test, Denominational Rights vs State Reform Power

Day 7 hearing reports :

Can't Lay Down Blanket Rules On State Interference In Religion For Social Reform : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

Sabarimala Reference | How Can Judgment Be Challenged In Writ? Supreme Court Questions Plea Against Dawoodi Bohra Practice

Day 8 reports :

Can't Take Information From 'WhatsApp University': Justice Nagarathna

No Restriction On Women To Enter Mosque For Namaz; ERP Tests Wrongly Applied To Islam : AIMPLB Tells Supreme Court

Day 9 reports :

Sabarimala Reference | Art 25(2)(b) Mentions Throwing Open Of Only Temples Since Caste System Is Not In Other Religions : Justice Nagarathna

'Don't Argue Like This' : Supreme Court Rebukes Lawyer In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

Day 10 reports :

'We Can't Be Part Of Annihilation Of Religion; Let's Not Open Age Old Customs' : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

Women Who Are True Devotees Of Lord Ayyappa Won't Go To Sabarimala Till They Attain 50 Years : Supreme Court

'Morality' Can't Be Interpreted As Societal Morality As It Can Be Based On Prejudices : Indira Jaising In Sabarimala Reference

Day 11 reports :

'What Good Came Out Of Your PIL?' : Supreme Court Questions NGO Which Filed Plea For Sabarimala Women Entry

'How Can Right To Conscience Be Taken Away By Marriage?' : Supreme Court Questions Excommunication Of Parsi Women Marrying Outside Faith

Day 12 reports :

Constitution Didn't Intend To Give Religious Denomination Higher Rights Than Believer : Darius Khambata In Sabarimala Reference

Day 13 Reports :

What Happens To Indian Civilisation If Every Religious Practice Is Questioned In Courts? Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference

Female Genital Mutilation Affects Health; Can't Be Compared With Circumcision : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

SC Shouldn't Have Totally Struck Down Law Banning Excommunication : Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing

Day 14 Reports :

Sabarimala Reference | Social Reform May Necessitate Scrutiny Of Religious Practices; Proportionality Test Can Be Used : Lawyers To Supreme Court

Follow this page for today's live updates :


Live Updates
2026-05-13 11:47 GMT

Advocates continue to make brief rejoinder arguments.

Arguments to continue and conclude tomorrow.

2026-05-13 10:59 GMT

Pasha: when I was reading 1986, it was said that there is no formal ex communication but its a word of mouth-that is the nature of facts pleaded and it can't face judicial scrutiny.

2026-05-13 10:51 GMT

Adv Nizam Pasha: colourful argument made by hedge that I can be hindu, be muslim have lunch, etc. while article 25 is broad enough, there is a corresponding collateral arises. the right of a group, there is no corresponding right to recognise individual's self identification.

Consciously, group right is placed over individual's right as they may have rights of passage.

On Khambatta's argument a proposal was moved that there should be an obligation that nobody should create interference into inter-caste. we have chosen to preserve. mylords give protection to intercaste,intermarriage that is the choice of individual. the collective does have a right to self preserve.

2026-05-13 10:38 GMT

Sr Adv J Sai Deepak also makes brief rejoinder submissions.

2026-05-13 10:34 GMT

Gopal: whether article 25 is a horizontal right against article 26- the consequence is how do you disentitle that? it is subject to as per my submission.

2026-05-13 10:30 GMT

Sr Adv Gopal Shankarnaryan: refers to one judgment- if entry into religious place of worship doesn't fall in article 26, the conflict doesn't arise. if mylords see the devaru judgment, the reasoning it starts with is where the error creeps in- two provisions of equal authority- subject to the other parts are there- the error does violence

2026-05-13 10:23 GMT

CJI: when parliament steps in, the court's first presumption si that the people demanded it

Kaul: mylords will havr to see whether it falls within the realm of social reforms or not.

2026-05-13 10:22 GMT

Sr Adv Neeraj Kishan Kaul: I didn;t touch any facts on excommunication before facts were not there.

1. judgment says as far as ex communication is concerned for religious practice, it can;t be termed as social reforms. mylord CJI also questioned why 5 judge bench didn't read it down- the judgment deals with it and because its consequence based, to read down would be rewriting the legislation

2. mylords said why other people are not part- I represent the head, the state i represented by the AG. 1.5 billion people, who am I suppose to make a part

CJI: you can't plead the people, most are known but duty cast on court to invite the public attention

Kaul: today I am saying is the instances are given from few 1000s people reporting. we have got affidavits contending the factual aspects. the instititon of Dai represents the Imam and the deepest core tenets of the faith require allegiance- what is being questioned is this very authority. an impression is given that for every trivial issue, ex communication takes place. let me tell you for 60 years, there has no been ex communication.

ex communication is not peculiar to us, it has been done to keep the flock together. the constitution bench judgment makes the distinction that whenyou are violating core tenets of faith, will not the head have the right?

we are dealing with a case where there is a history of the Dai.

2026-05-13 10:16 GMT

Singhvi: entry means meaningful entry.

on last issue, I gave 23 cases which were suits. there was one writ but in a different context. a non believer ordinarly lacks the sufficient reason to challenge it because other community follows such practice which is being challenged.

where there is no state action, the court ought not to entertain it.

Mr luthra started talking about FGM. My point is this we strongly rebut- sabarimala is a matter factually decided and the other matter is tagged. there is santhara in the jains, those are issues with no factual basis.

not only there was no factual ground, this is deliberately called FGM in Africa. what is done is by a very progressive community similar to male circumcision and suddenly its being called FGM. I oppose the FGM, I will be excommunicated- this is false, as its purely voluntarily ritualistic. I am representing an organisation of 80k women.

2026-05-13 10:08 GMT

Singhvi: entry must still be governed by article 25(2)(b)- after you entry, all parts of worship will be governed by article 26. santum sanctorum may be different.

J Nagarathna: what is the meaning of entry when you are asked to stand in the corner?

Similar News