History: The Road to the 9-Judge Bench

The legal battle has spanned nearly two decades, evolving from a local temple custom dispute into a foundational constitutional debate.

  • 1991 (Kerala High Court): The HC originally upheld the restriction on women aged 10–50, ruling it was in accordance with usage prevalent from "time immemorial."

  • 2006 (PIL Filed): The Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged the ban in the Supreme Court, arguing it violated Articles 14 (Equality) and 25 (Freedom of Religion).

  • September 28, 2018 (The Landmark Verdict): A 4:1 majority bench (led by CJI Dipak Misra) struck down the ban. They ruled that:

    • The practice was not an "Essential Religious Practice.

    • It violated the rights of Hindu women.

    • Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination.

      Note: Justice Indu Malhotra delivered the lone dissent, arguing that secular courts should not interfere in matters of deep religious faith.

  • November 2019 (The Reference): Instead of a standard review, a 5-judge bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a larger bench. They noted that the case raised wider issues regarding Muslim women’s entry into mosques and Parsi women’s rights.

  • 2020–2025 (The Hiatus): The case remained in "cold storage" for over six years due to the pandemic and other administrative delays, until the current bench was notified this month.

Current Status: Today’s Breaking Hearing

The nine-judge bench is operating on a strict timeline to wrap up arguments by April 22, 2026.

  • The Government’s Stance: Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, urged the Court to uphold the restrictions. The government argued that the exclusion is rooted in the specific character of the deity (Naishtika Brahmachari) and does not constitute gender discrimination.

  • The Seven Questions: The Court is not just looking at Sabarimala but is answering seven broader constitutional questions, including:

    1. Scope of Article 25: What is the interplay between the freedom of conscience/religion and the state's power to regulate or restrict this right?

    2. Article 25 vs. Article 26: What is the relationship between the individual right to freedom of religion and the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs?

    3. Fundamental Rights vs. Denominational Rights: Is the right of a religious denomination under Article 26 subject to other fundamental rights—specifically the right to Equality (Article 14) and the right to Life and Liberty (Article 21)?

    4. Definition of "Constitutional Morality": What is the exact definition and scope of the term "morality" as used in Articles 25 and 26? Does it refer to "Constitutional Morality" or "Religious Morality"?

    5. The "Essential Religious Practices" Test: To what extent can a Court investigate whether a particular practice is "essential" to a religion, and can a Court sit in judgment over the core beliefs of a faith?

    6. Article 25(2)(b) and "Sections of Hindus": What is the meaning of the phrase "sections of Hindus" in Article 25(2)(b), and does it allow the state to intervene in the internal practices of a denomination?

    7. Locus Standi in Religious PILs: Can a person who does not belong to a specific religious denomination challenge that denomination's practices through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?

  • Timeline for April 2026:

    • April 7–9: Arguments from parties supporting the review (Pro-restriction).

    • April 14–16: Arguments from parties opposing the review (Pro-entry).

    • April 21–22: Rejoinders and Amicus Curiae submissions.