SC to hear in April pleas on Sabarimala women entry ruling

1. At a Glance

• The Supreme Court has fixed April 7–22, 2026 as the hearing schedule for review/writ petitions against its September 2018 Sabarimala judgment, before a 9-judge Constitution Bench [1][3].
• Tests aspirants on doctrine of essential religious practices, Article 25/26 religious freedom, and reference jurisprudence (how larger benches are constituted) — a recurring GS-II/Constitutional law theme.
• Case is tagged with 66 other matters, including Muslim women's entry into mosques, Parsi women's entry into Fire Temples, and Dawoodi Bohra female genital mutilation (FGM) practice — making it a template "religious freedom vs. individual rights" question [3].

2. Why in the News

• On Monday (16 Feb 2026), a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant scheduled the Sabarimala review/writ petitions for hearing before a 9-judge Bench starting April 7, 2026 [3].
• SC subsequently notified the 9-judge Bench formally, confirming hearings commence 7 April 2026 [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• September 2018: 5-judge Constitution Bench (4:1 majority) held the Sabarimala Temple's bar on entry of women aged 10–50 ("menstruating age") unconstitutional, allowing entry to Lord Ayyappa temple in Kerala [1][3].
• Numerous review petitions filed against the 2018 verdict.
• November 2019: 5-judge Bench led by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by majority, referred the Sabarimala review/writ petitions to a 7-judge Bench, and clubbed similar "essentiality of religious practice" matters (Muslim women's mosque entry, Dawoodi Bohra FGM) with it [3].
• 2019: A 9-judge Bench was constituted by then-CJI Sharad A. Bobde to decide preliminary questions, including maintainability of review petitions [3].
• Hearings before that Bench were aborted due to onset of COVID-19 pandemic [3].
• February 2026: CJI Surya Kant's Bench noted maintainability had already been settled by the 2019 Bench, and fixed the substantive hearing timeline for April 2026 [3].
• April 2026: 9-judge Bench formally notified; hearings commenced April 7 as scheduled [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Detail
Original judgment	Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, September 2018 [1]
Bench size (original)	5 judges (4:1 majority) [1]
Referred to larger bench	November 2019, by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi [3]
Current bench size	9 judges [1][3]
Current CJI heading bench	Surya Kant [1][3]
Hearing start date	April 7, 2026 [1][3]
Review petitioners' arguments	April 7–9, 2026 [1][3]
Opposing arguments	April 14–16, 2026 [1][3]
Rejoinder submissions	April 21, 2026 [3]
Amicus curiae concluding submissions	April 22, 2026 [3]
Tagged connected matters	66, incl. Muslim women's mosque entry, Parsi women & Fire Temples, Dawoodi Bohra FGM [3]
Location of temple	Sabarimala, Kerala (Lord Ayyappa temple) [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Tests interplay of Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 26 (religious denomination's right to manage affairs), and Article 14/15 (equality, non-discrimination) [1].
• Involves the judicially evolved "essential religious practices" test — whether a practice is core to a religion and thus protected, or a peripheral social custom subject to constitutional morality.
• Raises procedural question of doctrine of precedent/reference: can a larger bench revisit a final judgment via review, and can unrelated matters (mosque entry, FGM) be clubbed under one reference.

Social

• Central to gender justice and women's equality debate — exclusion based on menstrual status.
• Broader ramifications for practices excluding women in other faiths (mosques, Fire Temples), signalling a cross-religious equality lens.

Governance / Ethical

• Tests judicial process transparency: petitions pending since 2018, delayed by COVID, highlighting judicial backlog and case management in constitutional matters.
• Balancing individual fundamental rights vs. group/community autonomy in matters of faith.

Historical

• Continuation of India's line of "essential practices" jurisprudence dating to Shirur Mutt case (1954) — used to test constitutional validity of religious customs.

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 16 February 2026: SC Bench (CJI Surya Kant) schedules Sabarimala review petitions for hearing from April 7, 2026, before 9-judge Bench [3].
• 2026 (post-February): SC formally notifies constitution of the 9-judge Bench; hearing commences on schedule from April 7 [1].
• Bench lays down a strict timeline (7–22 April 2026) for petitioners, respondents, rejoinder, and amicus curiae submissions, with parties directed to adhere to it [3].

7. Prelims Hooks

• 2018 Sabarimala judgment: case name Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala [1].
• 2018 verdict delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench, ratio 4:1 [1].
• 2018 judgment allowed entry of women of menstruating age (10–50 years) into Sabarimala temple [1][3].
• November 2019: review referred to a 7-judge Bench by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi [3].
• 9-judge Bench first constituted in 2019 by then-CJI Sharad A. Bobde [3].
• That 2019 hearing was aborted due to COVID-19 [3].
• Current 9-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant [1][3].
• Hearings scheduled: April 7–9 (review petitioners), April 14–16 (opponents), April 21 (rejoinder), April 22 (amicus curiae) [3].
• 66 connected matters tagged with Sabarimala review, including Muslim women's mosque entry and Dawoodi Bohra FGM issue [3].
• Sabarimala temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, located in Kerala [1].
• Legal doctrine tested: "essential religious practices" test [1].

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II — Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights (Articles 25, 26); Judiciary — structure, organisation, functioning; Judgments/reference to larger benches.
• GS-I — Social empowerment, role of women, issues related to gender.
• Plausible Mains stems: 1. "Discuss the constitutional basis of the 'essential religious practices' doctrine. How has the Sabarimala case tested the balance between individual rights and religious autonomy?" (GS-II) 2. "Examine the implications of clubbing dissimilar religious-freedom cases (Sabarimala, mosque entry, FGM) under a single reference to a larger Supreme Court bench." (GS-II) 3. "Gender justice often comes into conflict with religious customs in India. Critically analyse with reference to recent Supreme Court proceedings." (GS-I/GS-II)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 25 & 26 — Freedom of Religion: direct constitutional basis of the case.
• Essential Religious Practices doctrine (Shirur Mutt case, 1954): judicial test being applied.
• Triple Talaq judgment (Shayara Bano case, 2017): comparable gender-religion rights precedent.
• Right of Muslim women to enter mosques: tagged matter, parallel essential-practices issue.
• Dawoodi Bohra FGM practice case: tagged matter, bodily autonomy vs. religious custom.
• Doctrine of Precedent & Curative/Review Jurisdiction of SC: procedural angle of how reviews escalate to larger benches.
• Uniform Civil Code debate: broader socio-legal context of religion vs. individual rights.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Do not confuse the 2018 judgment bench size (5 judges) with the current review bench size (9 judges) — aspirants often merge these.
• The 2019 referral was to a 7-judge Bench by CJI Gogoi; the 9-judge Bench was separately constituted by CJI Bobde the same year — these are two distinct steps, not one.
• COVID-19 aborted the 2019–20 hearings, not the original 2018 judgment process — don't misdate the disruption.
• The current CJI heading the bench is Surya Kant, not Gogoi or Bobde (who were CJIs during earlier stages) — a common date/name mix-up trap.
• Sabarimala issue is about a temple bar on menstruating-age women, not a general temple-entry-for-all-women issue — precision on the age/context detail matters for prelims.