Sabarimala verdict review: SC notifies 9-judge Bench

1. At a Glance

• The Sabarimala review case revives, after a six-year hiatus, the Supreme Court's examination of whether women of menstruating age (10–50 years) can be barred from the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple, Kerala. [1][4]
• A 9-judge Constitution Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant was notified on 4 April 2026 to hear the matter from 7 April 2026. [1]
• Tests core constitutional doctrines — Essential Religious Practices (ERP), Articles 25, 26 and 14 — with implications well beyond Sabarimala, covering Parsi and Muslim women's exclusion cases too. [4][3]
• High-value UPSC topic bridging GS-II (Polity/Judiciary) and GS-I (Society/Gender).

2. Why in the News

• SC notified the 9-judge Bench on Saturday, 4 April 2026; hearings begin 7 April 2026. [1]
• Bench comprises CJI Surya Kant and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, Joymalya Bagchi. [1]
• This is the first substantial hearing on the constitutional questions after a gap of over six years; an earlier 9-judge Bench (2019, under CJI Sharad A. Bobde) had its hearings aborted due to COVID-19. [1]
• CJI Surya Kant is the only serving judge carried over from the earlier 2019 nine-judge Bench. [1]
• Court intends to conclude hearings by end-April 2026, with a fixed timetable: petitioners (7–9 April), respondents (14–16 April), rejoinders (21 April), amicus curiae concluding submissions (22 April). [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• 1965: Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules framed; Rule 3(b) permitted exclusion of women by custom. [4]
• 28 September 2018: In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, a 5-judge Constitution Bench (CJI Dipak Misra, Justices R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra) ruled 4:1 that the exclusion of women aged 10–50 was unconstitutional, violating Article 25; held Ayyappa devotees are not a separate religious denomination and the practice is not an ERP. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented. [4]
• 14 November 2019: Review Bench, by 3:2 majority, kept review petitions pending and referred larger constitutional questions (on ERP doctrine, Articles 25/26/14 interplay, and parallel issues like Muslim women's mosque entry and Parsi women's exclusion from Agiary) to a larger bench. [4]
• 13 January 2020: A 9-judge Bench under CJI S.A. Bobde constituted; hearings stalled by COVID-19. [4]
• April 2026: Case revived; new 9-judge Bench notified under CJI Surya Kant. [1]

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Detail
Temple	Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple, Kerala
Original case	Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) [4]
Original Bench	5-judge Constitution Bench, CJI Dipak Misra + 4 judges, verdict 4:1 [4]
Rule struck down	Rule 3(b), Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 [4]
Constitutional Articles involved	Articles 14 (equality), 25 (freedom of conscience & religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) [4]
Doctrine at stake	Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test
2019 Review Bench outcome	3:2 — questions referred to larger bench (not verdict reversed) [4]
First 9-judge Bench	Constituted 13 Jan 2020 under CJI S.A. Bobde; hearings aborted by COVID-19 [4]
Present 9-judge Bench	Notified 4 April 2026, under CJI Surya Kant [1]
Hearing schedule 2026	Petitioners: 7–9 April; Respondents: 14–16 April; Rejoinder: 21 April; Amicus curiae: 22 April [1]
Target completion	End of April 2026 [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Tests scope of Article 25 (individual freedom of religion) versus Article 26 (denominational autonomy) and whether the ERP doctrine is a judicially manageable standard. [4]
• Outcome will guide parallel pending matters on Muslim women's mosque entry and Parsi women's exclusion from Agiary (fire temple) after marrying outside the faith — the reference deliberately clubbed these issues. [3][4]
• Raises questions on the limits of judicial review over religious practice, and whether courts should decide "essentiality" of practices at all.

Social

• Centers on gender equity in access to religious spaces — exclusion of women aged 10–50 (menstruating age) as an essentially patriarchal/purity-based custom. [4]
• Broader test case for reconciling religious freedom claims of denominations with individual rights of women across faiths.

Governance / Ethical

• Tests the judiciary's institutional patience and continuity — a case pending 8 years (2018 verdict to 2026 resolution), spanning 3 CJIs (Misra, Bobde, now Surya Kant), showing challenges of bench reconstitution and docket management. [1][4]
• Strict adherence timeline imposed by the Court itself signals judicial case-management reform.

Historical

• Precedent-setting: only the second occasion an odd-numbered large bench (9 judges) has been convened for essential-practice questions in recent SC history; earlier one collapsed due to the pandemic. [4]

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 4 April 2026: SC formally notifies the reconstituted 9-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant. [1]
• 7–9 April 2026: Petitioners' hearings scheduled to commence. [1]
• 14–16 April 2026: Hearings for parties opposing entry of women. [1]
• 21 April 2026: Rejoinder submissions. [1]
• 22 April 2026: Concluding submissions from amicus curiae; Court aims to wrap up by end-April 2026. [1]
• Related: SC also examining Parsi excommunication practices under Articles 25–26 alongside the Sabarimala reference. [3]

7. Prelims Hooks

• The 2018 Sabarimala verdict was delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench in a 4:1 majority. [4]
• The case name: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018). [4]
• The rule struck down: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. [4]
• Lone dissenting judge in 2018: Justice Indu Malhotra. [4]
• 2019 Review Bench decision: 3:2 majority, kept review pending, referred questions to a larger bench. [4]
• First 9-judge Bench constituted 13 January 2020 under CJI S.A. Bobde; derailed by COVID-19. [4]
• Present (2026) 9-judge Bench notified under CJI Surya Kant, effective from 7 April 2026. [1]
• CJI Surya Kant is the only serving judge common to both the 2020 and 2026 nine-judge Benches. [1]
• Nine-judge Bench members (2026): Surya Kant (CJI), B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, Joymalya Bagchi. [1]
• The reference bundles the Sabarimala, Muslim women's mosque entry, and Parsi women's Agiary exclusion questions together. [3][4]
• Key constitutional Articles at stake: 14, 25, 26. [4]
• Doctrine under scrutiny: the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test. [4]
• Target: Court intends to conclude hearings by end of April 2026. [1]

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity & Governance — "Separation of powers between various organs, dispute redressal mechanisms," judicial review of religious customs, structure and functioning of the judiciary (Constitution Benches).
• GS-I: Indian Society — role of women, gender, social empowerment; effect of globalization/reform movements on society.
• Possible Mains stems: 1. "Discuss the constitutional tension between Articles 25 and 26 as illustrated by the Sabarimala reference. Should courts adjudicate the 'essentiality' of religious practices?" (GS-II) 2. "Examine how the Sabarimala case reflects the broader challenge of reconciling gender justice with religious freedom in India." (GS-I/GS-II) 3. "Critically analyse the institutional challenges in the Indian judiciary's handling of long-pending Constitution Bench references, with reference to the Sabarimala case." (GS-II)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine — the central legal test being re-examined. [4]
• Triple Talaq case (Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017) — comparable Article 25 vs. gender rights conflict.
• Sabarimala 2018 verdict (Indian Young Lawyers Association case) — the original ruling under review. [4]
• Parsi women's exclusion from Agiary — clubbed issue in the same reference. [3]
• Muslim women's entry into mosques — parallel pending litigation referenced alongside Sabarimala. [4]
• Article 25/26 vs Article 14 — fundamental rights framework for religious freedom vs equality.
• Constitution Benches & judicial reference practice — Article 145(3), procedure for constituting larger benches.
• Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act, 1965 — the underlying state legislation.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Do not confuse the 2018 verdict (5-judge bench, 4:1, struck down the ban) with the 2019 review order (3:2, did NOT reverse 2018 verdict, only referred questions onward).
• The 2018 verdict is still in force; the review has not overturned it — the 9-judge Bench is examining larger constitutional questions, not re-deciding entry per se.
• Do not mix up CJI Dipak Misra (2018 original verdict), CJI S.A. Bobde (2020 first nine-judge bench) and CJI Surya Kant (2026 reconstituted nine-judge bench) — three different CJIs across the case's timeline.
• Age bracket for exclusion is 10–50 years (menstruating age), not just "married women" or a specific fixed age.
• The rule struck down was Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules — not the parent Act itself.