A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, raised fundamental questions on 9 April 2026 about whether non-devotee organisations have standing to challenge religious customs through Public Interest Litigation, during the review hearing of the 2018 Sabarimala temple entry decision. Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that a PIL petition filed by an association without direct connection to the religious practice would ordinarily be dismissed under standard civil procedure rules, signalling a potential tightening of PIL jurisdiction in matters of faith.
Background
The hearing arises from the 2018 five-judge bench decision in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which held that the Sabarimala temple's practice of barring women of menstruating age from entry violated Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution. That judgment was referred to a larger bench after review petitions raised questions about the scope of judicial intervention in religious practices and the interplay between constitutional morality and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26.
The nine-judge bench was constituted to address broader constitutional questions: whether courts can determine the essential practices of a religious denomination, and how the balance between individual equality rights and collective religious freedom should be struck. The bench comprises CJI Surya Kant and Justices Nagarathna, Sundresh, Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Masih, Varale, Mahadevan, and Bagchi.
Key Observations
During hearings on 8 and 9 April, the bench made several significant observations:
Locus standi questioned: Justice Nagarathna asked pointedly whether a non-devotee who has no personal connection to the temple can maintain a writ petition challenging its customs. She noted that in conventional civil litigation, such a petition would be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for want of cause of action.
PIL misuse flagged: CJI Surya Kant observed that over the two decades between 2006 and 2026, the Supreme Court has become "increasingly cautious and selective" in entertaining PILs, and now applies stricter parameters to identify substance and filter petitions driven by hidden agendas.
Constitutional morality debate: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, questioned the reliance on "constitutional morality" in the original judgment and in related decisions such as Joseph Shine v. Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, arguing that the concept had been applied too expansively.
Centre's position: The Union Government supported stricter locus standi requirements in religiously sensitive matters, arguing that the definition of standing should not be liberally applied.
Religious denomination rights: The bench cautioned that while restrictive customs must be examined, excluding denominations from their own practices could harm the faith tradition itself.
Implications for Practitioners
These oral observations, while not binding, carry substantial weight given the size and composition of the bench. If the final judgment adopts a restrictive approach to PIL locus standi in religious matters, it would mark a significant doctrinal shift with implications far beyond the Sabarimala case.
Constitutional lawyers should note the potential emergence of a "causal connection" test for PIL petitioners in Article 25-26 cases — requiring petitioners to demonstrate personal stake or direct impact from the challenged practice. This would depart from the expansive standing jurisprudence that has characterised Indian PIL since S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982).
The hearing also has implications for pending challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which was enacted in the same period. The bench's observations on Article 15 gender equality (discussed during the same sitting) suggest the Court is grappling with the intersection of equality, identity, and religious autonomy in real time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the Supreme Court reversed the 2018 Sabarimala judgment allowing women's entry?
No. The nine-judge bench is hearing a review reference and has not yet delivered a final judgment. The 2018 decision by the five-judge bench remains operative. The current proceedings are examining broader constitutional questions about religious denomination rights and PIL standing that were referred for authoritative determination.
What is the timeline for the Sabarimala nine-judge bench judgment?
The hearing commenced on 7 April 2026, days before the Kerala Assembly elections. No firm timeline for judgment has been indicated. Given the constitutional complexity of the reference and the nine separate opinions likely, a reserved judgment could take several months.