The Sabarimala Reference

Source:  The Hindu

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of India, on April 7, 2026, commenced hearing the Sabarimala temple reference before a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant. The reference does not sit in review of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment — which had allowed women of all ages to enter the temple — but examines larger constitutional questions on the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the doctrine of Essential Religious Practice, the meaning of constitutional morality, and the limits of judicial review in matters of faith. 

What is the Sabarimala Temple Dispute? 

• The Sabarimala temple, located in Kerala, is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.  
• For centuries, it followed a tradition of barring entry of women of menstruating age — broadly between 10 and 50 years. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 gave statutory backing to this prohibition. 
• In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a PIL in the Supreme Court challenging this practice as a violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to equality and freedom of religion. 

The 2018 Judgment: 

• In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench decided the matter by a 4:1 majority.  
• The majority held that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination, that religious practices must conform to constitutional morality, and that Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to the protection of Article 26(b). Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules was struck down as unconstitutional. 
• Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, holding that courts should not interfere in matters of religious faith and that questions of essential religious practice must be left to the denomination itself.

From Judgment to Reference 

• Following the verdict, multiple review petitions were filed. When the review bench assembled, Justice Khanwilkar — part of the original majority — had a change of opinion.  
• By 3:2, the review bench in 2019 decided to keep the Sabarimala review pending and refer larger questions of law to a nine-judge bench. 
• The majority in the review noted that the issue was not limited to Sabarimala alone. Similar questions arose regarding entry of Muslim women into Durgahs and Mosques, entry of Parsi women married to non-Parsis into Agyaris, and the practice of Female Genital Mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community. 
• Seven constitutional questions were framed and referred to a larger bench. A nine-judge bench was constituted, excluding judges who had participated in the original 2018 decision.  
• In 2020, this bench upheld the validity of the reference. In 2023, the issue of ex-communication in the Dawoodi Bohra community was also clubbed with the reference.

Seven Constitutional Questions Before the Bench 

• What is the scope and ambit of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25? 
• What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 and the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26? 
• Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 are subject to other provisions of Part III beyond public order, morality, and health? 
• What is the scope of the word "morality" under Articles 25 and 26 — does it include constitutional morality? 
• What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice under Article 25? 
• What is the meaning of the expression "sections of Hindus" in Article 25(2)(b)? 
• Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination can question that denomination's practice by filing a PIL?

Composition of the Nine-Judge Bench 

• The bench comprises Chief Justice Surya Kant (presiding), Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Justice R. Mahadevan, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

Conclusion 

The Sabarimala reference marks one of the most significant constitutional exercises in recent Indian judicial history. At its core, it asks the Supreme Court to define how far the state — through its courts — may enter the domain of religious belief and practice. The nine-judge bench is not reopening the 2018 verdict; it is being asked to lay down the constitutional grammar that will govern such disputes for decades. The answers to the seven referred questions will shape the doctrinal framework around religious freedom, denominational autonomy, essential religious practice, and the meaning of constitutional morality under the Indian Constitution.