Follow rituals and observances of a temple or stay out, says SC Bench hearing Sabarimala case

Now writing the study note grounded in the article plus these Tier-4 web sources.

1. At a Glance

• The Sabarimala reference is a nine-judge Constitution Bench matter before the Supreme Court examining the interplay between Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), triggered by the 2018 Sabarimala verdict [S1][S2].
• On the day reported, the Bench observed that a devotee must follow the sampradaya (traditional practices) of a temple/shrine or stay out of it — one "cannot try to change the practice" from within [S3].
• High UPSC relevance: tests GS-II (polity — religious freedom, judicial review) and GS-I (society — gender, tradition vs reform), and is a live, evolving case likely to yield a landmark verdict.
• The case example set is a favourite comparative-illustration bank: Guruvayoor temple dress code, Sikh gurdwara head-covering, Kerala temple dhoti norms — all cited by the Bench itself [S3].

2. Why in the News

• On Thursday, 9 April 2026, hearing the Sabarimala reference, the Supreme Court said persons wishing to worship at a temple must follow its sampradaya or stay out; reported in The Hindu, 10 April 2026 print edition [S3].
• Justice M.M. Sundresh, a member of the nine-judge Bench, remarked that questioning a temple's practice takes one "out of the denomination" [S3].
• Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading the Bench, cited the Guruvayoor temple (shirts must be removed) and gurdwaras (head must be covered) as examples of denomination-specific sampradayas [S3].
• Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, for the Nair Service Society and other devotees' organisations, argued the 2018 Sabarimala verdict did not apply the "sampradaya test" [S3].
• The nine-judge Bench reserved its verdict after a 16-day hearing [S2][S4].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1991: Kerala High Court upholds the customary bar on entry of women aged 10–50 into Sabarimala (S. Mahendran case) [S6].
• 28 September 2018: In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, by 4:1 majority, declares the bar on women of menstruating age unconstitutional, rejecting the argument that it was an ancient/core essential religious practice [S3][S6].
• Justice Indu Malhotra dissents, holding it a matter of essential religious practice protected under Article 26 [S6].
• 65 review petitions filed against the 2018 verdict [S2].
• 14 November 2019: A 5-judge Bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by 3:2 majority, declines to stay/strike the 2018 verdict but refers larger constitutional questions (also touching Muslim women's mosque entry and Parsi women's fire-temple entry) to a larger nine-judge Bench [S2][S6].
• February–April 2026: Nine-judge Bench notified/reconstituted, headed by CJI Surya Kant; hearings begin 7 April 2026 [S1][S2][S6].
• Bench hears arguments over 16 days, including from Senior Advocates C.S. Vaidyanathan and Rajeev Dhavan; verdict reserved [S1][S2][S4].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional - Core tension: individual right to freedom of religion/conscience (Art. 25) vs a religious denomination's right to manage its own affairs (Art. 26) [S2]. - Bench is re-examining the judicially evolved essential religious practices doctrine — its workability and the standard of proof required to invoke it [S1][S2]. - Outcome will set precedent for a cluster of pending matters (mosque entry, Parsi fire temples, Dawoodi Bohra practices) [S2][S6].

Social - Directly engages gender equity — the 2018 case originated from excluding menstruating-age women; the "sampradaya" framing risks being read as legitimising exclusionary customs across faiths [S3][S6]. - Raises the tension between social reform (judicial intervention against discriminatory customs) and preservation of religious tradition [S1].

Ethical / Governance - Tests where courts should draw the line between protecting genuine religious autonomy and enabling regressive practices under the label of "custom" [S2]. - Question of institutional consistency: earlier ERP test allowed courts to second-guess claimed traditions; the sampradaya framing shifts toward deference to denominational self-definition [S1].

Historical - Continues a line of ERP jurisprudence from cases like Shirur Mutt (1954) establishing the essential practices test, through Sabarimala (2018) to the present reference [S1] (background reasoning, not separately sourced).

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 7 April 2026: Nine-judge Bench hearings on the Sabarimala reference commence [S1][S6].
• 9 April 2026: Bench remarks that devotees must follow a temple's sampradaya or stay out; CJI Surya Kant cites Guruvayoor and gurdwara dress/conduct norms [S3].
• Hearings proceed over 16 days; arguments from Sr. Advs. C.S. Vaidyanathan and Rajeev Dhavan on the workability of the ERP test [S1][S2].
• Verdict reserved by the nine-judge Bench after concluding hearings (May 2026) [S2][S4].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The 2018 Sabarimala verdict was delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala [S6].
• 2018 verdict majority: 4:1; dissenting judge — Justice Indu Malhotra [S6].
• The 2018 case allowed entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala, striking down the bar on women aged 10–50 [S3][S6].
• 65 review petitions were filed against the 2018 verdict [S2].
• On 14 November 2019, a 5-judge Bench (CJI Ranjan Gogoi) referred the matter to a nine-judge Bench by a 3:2 majority [S2][S6].
• The nine-judge Bench hearing the reference in 2026 is headed by CJI Surya Kant [S1][S3].
• Justice M.M. Sundresh stated that questioning a temple's practice takes a person "out of the denomination" [S3].
• The concept central to the hearing is called the "sampradaya test" (traditional practices test) [S3].
• The reference also implicates entry of Muslim women into mosques and Parsi women married outside the faith into fire temples [S2][S6].
• The doctrine under judicial re-examination is the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine [S1][S2].
• Sabarimala temple is located in Kerala, and the case example of Guruvayoor temple involves removing shirts before entry [S3].
• Relevant constitutional Articles: Article 25 (freedom of conscience, religion) and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) [S2].
• The nine-judge Bench reserved its verdict after a 16-day hearing in 2026 [S2][S4].

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity & Governance — "Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary"; fundamental rights (Articles 25–26); separation of powers between religious autonomy and state/judicial oversight.
• GS-I: Indian Society — "Role of women", social empowerment, communalism/secularism debates.
• Possible Mains question stems: 1. "Critically examine the essential religious practices doctrine evolved by the Supreme Court. Does the 'sampradaya test' offer a more coherent alternative?" (GS-II) 2. "Discuss the tension between individual fundamental rights under Article 25 and group religious autonomy under Article 26, with reference to the Sabarimala reference case." (GS-II) 3. "To what extent should courts intervene in matters of religious practice in the name of gender justice and social reform?" (GS-I/GS-II)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) — the original Sabarimala judgment; foundational case law.
• Essential Religious Practices Doctrine / Shirur Mutt case (1954) — origin of the doctrine now under review.
• Triple Talaq / Shayara Bano case — parallel debate on religious personal law vs fundamental rights.
• Parsi women excommunication (fire temple entry) case — directly clubbed with this reference.
• Dawoodi Bohra female genital cutting case — clubbed constitutional question on religious practice vs bodily autonomy.
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28) — broader constitutional framework.
• Uniform Civil Code debate — connected theme of religion vs constitutional morality.
• Doctrine of Basic Structure / Constitutional Morality — jurisprudential concepts invoked in such cases.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Do not confuse the 2018 verdict (4:1, entry allowed) with the 2019 referral order (3:2, referred to larger bench) — different benches, different majorities.
• The nine-judge Bench is not re-deciding Sabarimala entry alone; it is answering broader questions on Articles 25–26 applicable across multiple religions (Parsi, Muslim, Bohra).
• Do not attribute the "sampradaya test" argument to the Court's final judgment — as of the reported hearing, the verdict was only reserved, not delivered.
• Avoid mixing up Justice Indu Malhotra's 2018 dissent with the 2019 referral bench's dissenting judges — they are different benches.
• Note the current CJI heading the bench is Surya Kant, not the CJI who delivered the original 2018 verdict (Dipak Misra) or the 2019 referral (Ranjan Gogoi).

11. Sources

• [S1] Sansal Legal, "Sabarimala Reference: Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict on Articles 25 and 26 After 16-Day Hearing" — https://www.sansalegal.com/post/sabarimala-reference-supreme-court-9-judge-bench-reserves-verdict-on-articles-25-and-26-after-16-da — (tier: 4)
• [S2] LawChakra, "Sabarimala Reference Case Verdict Reserved: Supreme Court's 9-Judge Bench Reserves Judgment After 16 Days Hearing" — https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/sabarimala-reference-verdict-reserved/ — (tier: 4)
• [S3] The Hindu, "Follow rituals and observances of a temple or stay out, says SC Bench hearing Sabarimala case" (10 April 2026 print edition) — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-04-10/th_international/articleGMHFR48EL-14189218.ece — (tier: 4)
• [S4] LiveLaw, "Sabarimala Reference: Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict After 16 Days Hearing" — https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-sabarimala-reference-verdict-reserved-534228 — (tier: 4)
• [S6] Ananta IAS, "Sabarimala Judgment Explained: 2018 Verdict & 9-Judge Reference for UPSC" — https://anantamias.com/sabarimala-judgement/ — (tier: 4)