A Bench of the Supreme Court of India will begin hearings on the Sabarimala Temple review from April 7, examining questions on freedom and entry. Today, Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul M. Pancholi asked parties to submit arguments by March 14.
NEW DELHI: A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is set to commence hearings on the reference made in the Sabarimala review case starting April 7.
The Bench will explore seven critical legal questions concerning religious rights and freedoms, which will ultimately determine whether women can be permitted to enter the hill shrine in Kerala.
Today, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi instructed the involved parties to submit their written arguments by March 14.
The Court stated in its order,
“We may advert to order dated Feb 10, 2020, framing the seven questions to be determined by the nine-judges bench. With a view to answer the questions that remained pending, we direct parties to file their written submissions on or before March 14, 2026,”
Additionally, the Court established a timeline for the attorneys involved in the case, confirming that the hearings would conclude by April 22.
The Court directed,
“The nine-judge bench will begin hearing the Sabarimala review case on April 7, 2026, at 10:30 am. The review petitioners or the party supporting them shall be heard from April 7 to April 9. The opposing parties will be heard from April 14 to April 16. Any rejoinder submissions will be addressed on April 21, followed by final submissions by the learned amicus, which should conclude by April 22. The parties shall adhere to this schedule. The nodal counsels, in consultation with the arguing counsels, shall coordinate arrangements to ensure that oral arguments from both sides are heard within the specified timeline,”
Also Read: [Sabarimala Entry] Kerala HC Rejected 10-yr-old Girl’s Plea
Notably, the Central government conveyed its support for the review petition in the Sabarimala case and opposed women’s entry into the temple, in line with the temple’s traditions.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Central government said,
“We are supporting the review, my lord,”
The Bench acknowledged,
“There are some unforeseen bridges which we may have to cross when we are hearing the case.”
This issue traces back to the Supreme Court’s September 2018 verdict in which a 5-judge Constitution Bench, by a majority of 4:1, permitted women of all ages to enter the hilltop shrine in Kerala, setting aside a tradition that barred entry for menstruating women. This decision sparked significant protests across Kerala and led to numerous review petitions from various individuals and organizations filed with the apex court.
In November 2019, although the Supreme Court addressed the review petitions, it did not reach a definitive conclusion. The Court stated that broader issues relating to the Essential Religious Practices Test, the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 on one side and Article 14 on the other, as well as the conflicts between the Shirur Mutt and Durgah Committee cases, would need to be resolved by a larger Bench.
ALSO READ: New CJI-Led Nine-Judge Constitution Bench to Deliberate Key Cases
As a result, the Sabarimala review petitions will remain pending until these questions are resolved by the larger Bench, as established by the review Bench.
The nine-judge Bench will address the following significant legal questions:
- The ambit and scope of religious freedom.
- The relationship between rights under Article 25 and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the rights of religious denominations are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
- The scope and extent of morality under Articles 25 and 26, and whether it encompasses constitutional morality.
- Whether religious denominations have fundamental rights.
- The meaning of “section of Hindus” as mentioned in Article 25(2)(b).
- Whether an individual not belonging to a religious group can challenge the practices of that group through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
The matter had previously stalled due to COVID-19 disruptions affecting court operations.
The decision by the nine-judge Bench will be pivotal in determining the outcome of the Sabarimala review petitions, as well as the question of women’s entry into the temple. This ruling will also influence other pending cases concerning issues such as the entry of Muslim women into Durgahs or mosques, the status of Parsi women married to non-Parsis in Agyaris, and the practice of female genital mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohra community.
CaseTitle: 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 PIL-W
Read Live Coverage: