Sabarimala case returns to Supreme Court as nine-judge Bench begins hearing today

A decades-old debate returns to the Supreme Court as nine judges take up questions that could redefine religion and rights in India. What they decide may go far beyond Sabarimala and reshape constitutional boundaries.

In Short

• Supreme Court starts hearing Sabarimala reference from today
• Nine-judge Bench led by CJI Surya Kant to examine constitutional questions
• Focus on Article 25 and interplay with equality and dignity rights

In a case that could redefine the balance between faith and fundamental rights, the Supreme Court will begin hearing the Sabarimala reference from today before a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

The Bench, also comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, will examine a set of constitutional questions that go well beyond the Sabarimala temple dispute.

At the heart of the hearing lies the scope of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 and its interplay with other fundamental rights such as equality and dignity. The Bench will also consider how far courts can intervene in religious practices and what constitutes “essential religious practice”.

Seven key questions framed earlier include whether religious denominations’ rights are subject to other fundamental rights, the meaning of “constitutional morality”, and whether those outside a faith can challenge its practices through public interest litigation.

BEYOND SABARIMALA

Though the lead case relates to entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, the outcome is expected to influence a range of contentious issues across faiths. These include entry of Parsi women into fire temples after marrying outside the community, the practice of excommunication among Dawoodi Bohras, and questions around practices such as polygamy and nikah halala.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board and certain Jain groups have also submitted written arguments in the matter.

BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE

In September 2018, a five-judge Bench by a 4:1 majority allowed entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple, holding that “devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination”.

The majority verdict, delivered by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra along with Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, struck down Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Kerala rules that barred entry of women. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented.

A series of review petitions followed. On November 14, 2019, a five-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred broader constitutional questions to a larger Bench, observing that similar issues arose in other religious contexts.

HEARING SCHEDULE AND PARTICIPATION

The court has set a detailed schedule for arguments over the next three weeks. Parties supporting the review petitions, who argue that courts should not interfere in religious practices, will be heard from April 7 to April 9.

Opposing parties, including original petitioners and women’s rights groups, are scheduled to present their case from April 14 to April 16, followed by rejoinders on April 21. Submissions from amicus curiae senior advocate K Parameswar are expected on April 22.

So far, 81 parties have filed written submissions seeking to present their arguments.

CENTRE, KERALA BACK REVIEW PETITIONS

Just ahead of the hearing, both the Centre and the Kerala government have supported the review petitions. In its affidavit, the Centre argued that the restriction on entry of women aged 10 to 50 is linked to the nature of the deity, Lord Ayyappa, as a “Naishtika Brahmachari”.

It said the practice is not based on notions of impurity or inferiority of women and does not violate the right to equality.

“Allowing entry would alter the very nature of worship here, undermining religious pluralism protected by the Constitution,” the Centre said, adding that it would also affect the rights of devotees who have followed the tradition for centuries.

The Kerala government has also informed the court that it now supports the review petitions, saying customary practices of a temple should not be overruled by judicial intervention.

WHAT LIES AHEAD

The nine-judge Bench is expected to focus first on settling the broader legal questions. Individual disputes, including the Sabarimala case, may later be examined separately by smaller Benches once the constitutional principles are clarified.

The hearings, scheduled over multiple days this month, are likely to shape how courts interpret religion, rights and state intervention for years to come.

- Ends