15 May 2026·The Hindu

SC Bench concludes Sabarimala reference hearing

In this note

1. At a Glance

Nine-judge SC Bench, CJI Surya Kant, concluded 16-day Sabarimala Reference hearing, reserved judgment [1][2].
Tests scope of judicial review over religious practice vs legislature's reform role — core Art. 25/26 tension [3].
Verdict spillover: affects Dawoodi Bohras, Parsis, mosque-entry (Muslim women) cases too — not Sabarimala alone [1][2].
Classic Prelims+Mains crossover: SC composition, Constitution Bench rules, essential religious practices doctrine.

SC concluded Sabarimala Reference hearing 14 May 2026 (16 days, started 7 Apr 2026), judgment reserved [1][2][3].
CJI Surya Kant: courts can't abdicate duty to judicially review religious practices for fundamental-rights violations, though primary reform duty rests with legislature [3].

Sept 2018: 5-judge Bench (4:1) struck down Sabarimala ban on women aged 10–50, held practice unconstitutional (violated Art. 25) [1][2][3].
Review petitions filed against 2018 verdict.
Nov 2019: 5-judge Bench (review) referred matter to larger Bench, framed 7 broader questions on religious freedom cutting beyond Sabarimala — needed 9-judge (or larger) Bench [1][2].
7 Apr 2026: 9-judge Bench commences hearing [2].
14 May 2026 (reported 15 May 2026, Hindu p.3): hearing concludes after 16 days, judgment reserved [3][article].

Item	Detail
Bench size	9 judges [1][2]
Bench head	CJI Surya Kant [1][3]
Other judges	Nagarathna, Sundresh, Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Masih, Varale, Mahadevan, Bagchi [1]
Amicus curiae	Sr. Adv. K. Parameshwar [4]
Core Articles	Art. 25 (freedom of religion/conscience), Art. 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) [1][2]
Original verdict	Sept 2018, 5-judge Bench, 4:1, Sabarimala ban unconstitutional [1]
Referral	Nov 2019, 5-judge review Bench, 7 questions framed [1][2]
Hearing span	7 Apr–14 May 2026, 16 days [2]
Scope	Cuts across religions — includes Muslim women's mosque-entry right [4]

Legal/Constitutional

Tests judicial review limits vs legislative primacy in religious reform — CJI: "not a question of power... duty of a constitutional court" [3].
Interplay Art. 25 (individual) vs Art. 26 (denominational autonomy) central tension [1][2].
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine implicitly under scrutiny — same test used across Sabarimala, mosque-entry, Parsi, Bohra cases [1].

Social

Gender equity vs religious custom — women's entry age-bar (10–50) at Ayyappa shrine [1].
Precedent-setting for other faiths' gender-restrictive practices (mosque entry for Muslim women) [4].

Governance/Ethical

Question of institutional role: courts as "duty-bound" reviewer, not "passive observer" nor "overzealous reformer" [3].
Balances federal structure: temple administration (state subject, Kerala Devaswom Board) vs central constitutional adjudication.

Historical

Extends 2018 Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala line; joins with Shayara Bano (triple talaq), Bombay High Court Haji Ali dargah, mosque-entry PILs as batch reference [4].

Sabarimala temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, located in Kerala.
2018 Sabarimala verdict: 5-judge Bench, 4:1 majority, struck down bar on women aged 10–50.
Dissenting judge in 2018: Justice Indu Malhotra (from memory — verify separately, not in retrieved sources).
Review referred to larger Bench in Nov 2019 by a 5-judge Bench.
Current Reference heard by 9-judge Constitution Bench — largest since some recent landmark references.
Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant.
Amicus curiae in hearing: Sr. Adv. K. Parameshwar [4].
7 broad questions framed by 2019 referral Bench span multiple religions, not just Hinduism.
Hearing spanned 16 days, Apr–May 2026.
Case touches Article 25 (freedom of conscience, propagate religion) and Article 26 (manage religious affairs).
Verdict reserved — no pronouncement date fixed as of report.
Case relevant to Dawoodi Bohra, Parsi religious-practice disputes too [1].
Constitution Bench triggered under Article 145(3) requirement — matters involving substantial Constitutional interpretation need min. 5 judges.

GS-II: Polity — Judiciary, Fundamental Rights (Art. 25/26), separation of powers, judicial review vs legislative reform.
GS-I (secondary): Social issues — gender justice, religion and society.
Sample stems:
"Discuss the tension between Article 25 and Article 26 in adjudicating gender-based restrictions in religious practice, with reference to the Sabarimala Reference case."
"Should constitutional courts have primacy over legislatures in reforming religious practices? Critically examine in light of recent SC observations."
"Examine the doctrine of 'Essential Religious Practices' and its consistency in application across different faiths."

Essential Religious Practices doctrine — core test SC applies across all these cases.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) — original Sabarimala judgment.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) — triple talaq, parallel gender-religion rights case.
Haji Ali Dargah entry case — parallel women's-entry precedent.
Article 145(3) — Constitution Bench requirement for substantial constitutional questions.
Uniform Civil Code debate — broader personal-law reform context.
Kerala Devaswom Board / temple administration laws — administrative backdrop.
Basic structure doctrine — relevant to limits of judicial review.

Don't confuse 2018 verdict (5-judge, struck down ban) with 2026 hearing (9-judge, reviewing/reference stage) — verdict not yet delivered in 2026 event.
Referral to larger Bench was in Nov 2019, not immediately after 2018 judgment.
Case is not Sabarimala-specific alone — it's a composite Reference covering multiple religions' practices.
Don't misattribute amicus curiae role as petitioner — Parameshwar assisted the court, didn't represent a party.
Avoid conflating Art. 25 (individual right) with Art. 26 (denominational/institutional right) — distinct provisions.