The nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, 21 April 2026, heard rejoinder submissions in the Sabarimala review, a landmark reference that consolidates 66 matters and raises seven questions on the scope of religious freedom under the Indian Constitution. The Bench, presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is on course to conclude hearings on 22 April 2026, when closing submissions from the amici curiae are expected.
Background
The Sabarimala review arose from the five-judge Constitution Bench's judgment of 28 September 2018 in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which by 4:1 majority held that the practice of excluding women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entry into the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple violated Articles 14, 15, 25 and 17 of the Constitution.
Review petitions and writ petitions filed thereafter led a five-judge Bench, by order dated 14 November 2019 in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, to refer a set of seven broad questions to a larger Bench. That reference has now matured before a nine-judge Bench, which commenced substantive hearings on 7 April 2026 under a fixed schedule: review petitioners argued from 7 to 9 April, original writ petitioners opposing the review were heard on 14 to 16 April, and rejoinder submissions are scheduled for 21 April 2026.
Sixty-six connected matters have been tagged — including challenges to the exclusion of Muslim women from mosques, the disentitlement of Parsi women married outside the community from Fire Temple entry, and female genital mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohra community — making the outcome the most consequential constitutional examination of religious freedom in a generation.
Key Issues
The seven referred questions canvass:
Interpretative scope of Articles 25 and 26 and the role of "constitutional morality" in limiting religious freedom.
Essential religious practices test — its origin in Sri Shirur Mutt (1954 SCR 1005), its operational content, and the institutional question of who — court or community — determines essentiality.
Applicability of Article 25(2)(b) ("Hindus" and its sections) to non-Hindu faiths.
Interplay of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 when equality norms collide with denominational autonomy.
"Religious denomination" test and whether sub-communities within a larger faith qualify.
Horizontal enforcement of fundamental rights against non-State religious bodies.
Reviewability of judgments declaring a religious practice unconstitutional.
Implications for Practitioners
The jurisprudence that emerges will shape pleading strategy in every subsequent case involving religious denomination disputes, community customs, and intra-community gender exclusion. Counsel advising religious trusts and bodies should prepare for a potentially redefined essential religious practices test that may either narrow or broaden the judicial role in evaluating religious claims.
For litigators representing individual claimants asserting equality-based challenges to religious exclusion, the Bench's treatment of Article 25(2)(b) and the horizontal-enforcement question will determine whether such claims can be maintained against trusts and denominational bodies in future petitions. The Court's answer to the reviewability question carries institutional significance: if the Bench holds that a finalised Constitution Bench judgment declaring a practice unconstitutional cannot be reopened in review on the grounds advanced here, that will recalibrate review jurisprudence in constitutional matters generally under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Practitioners should also anticipate that the nine-judge pronouncement, once delivered, will trigger a wave of follow-on litigation in State High Courts seeking application of the reworked tests to local temple administration, mosque entry, and community governance disputes. Archiving the hearing transcripts and written submissions from this reference will be essential research material for the next decade of religious freedom litigation in India.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the seven questions referred to the nine-judge Bench?
The questions, framed by a five-judge Bench on 14 November 2019, concern: (i) Articles 25 and 26 and constitutional morality; (ii) the essential religious practices test; (iii) Article 25(2)(b) and non-Hindu faiths; (iv) the interplay of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26; (v) the religious denomination test; (vi) horizontal application of fundamental rights against religious bodies; and (vii) reviewability of judgments on unconstitutionality of religious practices.
What is the 'essential religious practices' doctrine being reconsidered?
Traceable to The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954 SCR 1005), the doctrine confines constitutional protection under Article 25 to practices "essential and integral" to a religion. The institutional question — whether the court or the religious community decides essentiality — is squarely before the nine-judge Bench.
What other cases are tagged to this reference?
Sixty-six matters, including petitions on Muslim women's entry to mosques, Parsi women's entry into Fire Temples after marrying outside the community, and female genital mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohra community, are tagged to the Sabarimala review. The constitutional framework established by the Bench will govern all of them.