The nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing the Sabarimala temple entry review concluded opposition arguments on April 16, 2026, completing the second phase of a structured hearing schedule. The Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard original writ petitioners who argued against the review of the 2018 verdict that had permitted women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple, with the three-day session (April 14-16) focused on constitutional morality, the limits of the essential religious practices (ERP) doctrine, and the application of Article 15 to religious exclusions.
Background
The nine-judge reference arises from the 4:1 majority decision in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), which held that the exclusion of women aged 10-50 from the Sabarimala temple violated Articles 14, 15, 25, and 51A(e) of the Constitution. Review petitions were filed, and a 5-judge bench referred three questions to the larger bench in November 2019. The Bench was notified in February 2026 and commenced hearing on April 7. Review petitioners argued from April 7-9; opposition arguments ran from April 14-16. Sixty-six matters are tagged to this reference, including cases concerning the right of Muslim women to enter mosques, Parsi women's access to fire temples after inter-faith marriage, and the practice of female genital mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Key Arguments During Opposition Phase (April 14-16)
Constitutional morality has textual basis: Counsel for the original writ petitioners argued that constitutional morality is not a judicial invention but is embedded in the text of Part III, particularly in the non-discrimination guarantees of Articles 14 and 15. They contended that "morality" in Articles 25(1) and 26 must be read as "constitutional morality" — not community-specific religious morality.
ERP doctrine should not shield discrimination: Petitioners urged the bench not to expand the ERP doctrine to validate exclusionary practices, arguing that if an essential practice discriminates on the basis of sex, it must yield to the equality guarantee under Article 15.
Article 15 strict scrutiny: It was argued that any sex-based exclusion from a place of public worship triggers strict scrutiny under Article 15, and that the exclusion of menstruating women cannot be justified under any exception to Article 15(1).
Implications for Practitioners
The outcome of this reference will establish the constitutional framework governing the intersection of religious freedom (Articles 25-26) and gender equality (Article 15) for decades. The 66 tagged matters mean the bench's pronouncement will have cascading effects across religious communities. Practitioners advising religious institutions should note that the current hearing trajectory suggests the bench is seriously examining whether courts can evaluate the rationality of claimed essential religious practices — a question that, if answered affirmatively, would significantly expand judicial review of religious autonomy. Rejoinder arguments are listed for April 21, with the amicus curiae scheduled to conclude on April 22.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the three core questions before the nine-judge Sabarimala bench?
The bench is examining: (1) what is the scope of "morality" under Articles 25 and 26, and whether it includes "constitutional morality"; (2) whether the essential religious practices (ERP) doctrine should be reformulated or limited; and (3) whether sex-based exclusions in religious practice attract strict scrutiny under Article 15 of the Constitution.
When will the Sabarimala nine-judge bench deliver its verdict?
Arguments are expected to conclude by April 22, 2026, after rejoinder submissions on April 21 and amicus concluding arguments on April 22. The bench has not indicated when the judgment will be delivered. Given the constitutional significance and 66 tagged matters, the judgment may take several months.