Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench To Hear Sabarimala Reference Issues From April 7

The Supreme Court 9-judge bench will commence hearing of the issues referred in the Sabarimala review on April 7, 2026. The hearing is proposed to be concluded on April 22.

The composition of the 9-judge bench will be notified by the Chief Justice of India separately through an administrative order. 

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the orders today for the listing of the reference before the 9-judge bench.  

The parties supporting the review of the Sabarimala judgment will make arguments from April 7 to April 9. The parties opposing the review are given the dates from April 14-16 for their arguments. The rejoinder submissions will be on April 21, and the hearings are expected to be concluded on April 22.

Today, the 3-judge bench was dealing with the batch of review petitions and writ petitions arising out of the Court's September 2018 judgment, which allowed women of menstruating age to enter into the Lord Ayyappa temple. Listed alongwith these were petitions relating to the issues of Muslim women's entry in Dargah/mosques, entry of Parsi women in Fire Temples if they have married a non-Parsi, validity of the practices of excommunication and Female Genital Mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Central Government was supporting the review of the judgment.

Background

In November, 2018, the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'. Then CJI Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud constituted the majority, while lone woman judge on the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented.

The judgment of the CJI held that Lord Ayyappa devotees will not constitute a separate religious denomination. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship(Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965, which prohibited entry of women in Sabarimala, was also struck down as unconstitutional. Assailing this decision, a bunch of review petitions and writ petitions later came to be filed.

On November 14, 2019, a 5-judge bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi observed by a 3:2 majority that certain issues in the Sabarimala review were common to the pending cases concerning women entry in Mosques, validity of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community and the right of Parsi women who had married outside community to enter Fire Temples.

It decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices. It was expressed that the issue whether Court can interfere in essential practices of religion needed examination by larger bench. The minority comprised of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice RF Nariman, who dissented noting that the issues of Parsi women and Muslim women were not before the Sabarimala bench and hence the matters could not be tagged.

In January, 2020, the Court notified the constitution of a 9-judge bench to consider the larger issues. It comprised then CJI SA Bobde, Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageshwara Rao, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, S Abdul Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant (now CJI). In February, the 9-judge bench held that the reference was maintainable and questions of law could be referred to a larger bench in review. It framed 7 issues for consideration:

1. What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

2. What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?

3. Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India apart from public order, morality and health?

4. What is the scope and extent of the word 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?

5. What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

6. What is the meaning of expression "Sections of Hindus" occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?

7. Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?

In February, 2023, a Constitution Bench referred the question of the validity of the practice of excommunication prevalent among the Dawoodi Bohras to the nine-Judge Bench constituted to review the 2018 Sabarimala judgement.

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006