SC says courts cannot reform matters of faith

1. At a Glance

• Nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by CJI Surya Kant, is hearing the Sabarimala Review Reference re-examining the 2018 verdict on women's temple entry [S1][S2].
• Core constitutional tension: can courts judicially "reform" religion, or must reform of religious practice come from within the faith itself — pits Article 14/21 (equality, dignity) against Article 25/26 (freedom of religion, denominational autonomy) [S1].
• High UPSC salience: tests fundamental rights vs. religious freedom, essential religious practices (ERP) doctrine, judicial review limits, and separation of powers between courts and religious institutions.
• Outcome will have cascading effect on 66 tagged matters — Muslim women's mosque entry, Parsi women's fire-temple entry after inter-faith marriage, Dawoodi Bohra FGM practice — making it a potential landmark on religion-gender jurisprudence [S1].

2. Why in the News

• On 29 April 2026 (reported 30 April 2026), the nine-judge Bench heard submissions from senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for two women who had entered the Sabarimala temple in 2019 to enforce the 2018 verdict; the Bench observed that courts cannot herald reform in religion [S3 - article].
• Jaising countered that "social reform includes reform of religion" and that religion "must mend to remain relevant" [S3 - article].
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna flagged the need for balance between beneficial reform and intrusive reform that hollows out a religion [S3 - article].
• The Bench reserved judgment on 14 May 2026 after a 16-day hearing spanning 7–22 April 2026 [S1].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1991: Kerala High Court upheld the Sabarimala temple's customary bar on entry of women aged 10–50 (menstruating age group), citing the deity's "naishtik brahmachari" (celibate) status.
• 28 September 2018: A 5-judge Constitution Bench (4:1 majority; Indu Malhotra J. dissenting) in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala held the customary exclusion unconstitutional, ruling it violated Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 [S1].
• 2018–2019: Widespread protests in Kerala; women attempting entry faced resistance; two women entered the shrine on 2 January 2019, becoming the first to do so post-verdict.
• 2019: A 5-judge Bench (3:2) referred review petitions to a larger (7-judge) Bench, framing wider questions on judicial review of religious practices across faiths (Parsi, Muslim, Dawoodi Bohra matters clubbed in).
• 2026: Reference expanded and heard by a 9-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, Joymalya Bagchi [S1].
• Hearings: pro-review arguments 7–9 April 2026; anti-review arguments 14–16 April 2026; rejoinders 21 April 2026; amicus curiae concluded 22 April 2026; judgment reserved 14 May 2026 [S1].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal/Constitutional - Tests the judiciary's competence to adjudicate on "matters of faith" vs. its constitutional duty to enforce fundamental rights even within religious spaces [S3]. - Revives debate on the ERP test (evolved via Shirur Mutt, 1954) — whether a practice is essential to a religion, and who decides (courts vs. religious denomination). - Could recalibrate the constitutional balance between individual rights (Art. 14, 21, 25(1)) and group/denominational rights (Art. 26).

Social - Central to gender justice debates — women's right to worship equally versus preserving practices rooted in menstrual taboo. - Outcome will influence allied gender-and-faith disputes: mosque entry for Muslim women, Parsi women's fire-temple rights, and the Bohra FGM practice [S1].

Ethical/Governance - Raises the separation-of-powers question: should un-elected courts direct religious reform, or should reform be community-driven, with courts only intervening against clear rights violations? - Nagarathna J.'s "balance" observation frames a judicial self-restraint principle — reform must not "hollow out" a religion [S3].

Historical - Echoes earlier reform-via-judiciary/legislature debates: Sati abolition (1829), Hindu Code Bills (1955-56), Triple Talaq criminalisation (2019) — pattern of state/court intervention in religious/personal practices for equality.

Administrative - Implementation of the 2018 verdict faced ground-level resistance in Kerala (protests, law-and-order issues), illustrating gap between judicial pronouncement and social acceptance — a live governance challenge regardless of the Reference's outcome.

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 7–9 April 2026: Petitioners/parties supporting review of the 2018 verdict argued before the 9-judge Bench [S1].
• 14–16 April 2026: Parties opposing review (backing the 2018 verdict) argued [S1].
• 21 April 2026: Rejoinder arguments submitted [S1].
• 22 April 2026: Amicus curiae concluded arguments [S1].
• 29 April 2026: Indira Jaising's submissions reported; Bench remarks that courts cannot herald religious reform [S3].
• 14 May 2026: 9-judge Bench reserved judgment after 16-day hearing [S1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The 2018 Sabarimala verdict was delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench, 4:1, with Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting.
• The 2026 Sabarimala Reference is being heard by a 9-judge Bench, headed by CJI Surya Kant.
• The Sabarimala custom barred women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Lord Ayyappa Temple, Kerala.
• 66 matters are tagged to the Sabarimala Reference, including Parsi and Muslim women's religious-entry rights and the Dawoodi Bohra FGM issue.
• The 2018 verdict case name: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala.
• Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, propagation of religion; Article 26 guarantees a religious denomination's right to manage its own religious affairs.
• The "Essential Religious Practices" (ERP) doctrine originated in the Shirur Mutt case, 1954.
• Two women first entered Sabarimala temple post-verdict on 2 January 2019.
• Senior advocate Indira Jaising represented the respondents supporting the 2018 verdict in 2026 hearings.
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna raised the "balance" test between beneficial and intrusive religious reform.
• The Bench reserved its judgment on 14 May 2026 after 16 days of hearing.
• The Reference originated from a 2019 review order by a 5-judge Bench (3:2) referring questions to a larger Bench.

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Indian Constitution — features, significant provisions; Fundamental Rights (Art. 14, 15, 25, 26); Judiciary — structure, organisation, functioning; separation of powers.
• GS-I (secondary): Social empowerment, role of women, secularism debates.
• Possible Mains stems: 1. "Can courts be the appropriate forum to reform religious practices, or should reform be left to religious communities themselves? Discuss with reference to the Sabarimala case." 2. "Critically examine the 'Essential Religious Practices' doctrine and its adequacy in balancing Articles 25/26 with Articles 14 and 21." 3. "Judicial pronouncements often precede social acceptance, creating an implementation gap. Discuss in the context of the Sabarimala verdict."

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine — the legal test underlying this entire dispute.
• Triple Talaq / Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 — parallel state intervention in religious personal law.
• Uniform Civil Code (Article 44) — broader debate on state role in religious/personal law reform.
• Sati Prevention Act & 19th-century social reform movements — historical precedent for reform of religious custom.
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28) — foundational constitutional text.
• Basic Structure Doctrine — relevant if the Bench examines limits on judicial reinterpretation of rights.
• Dawoodi Bohra FGM case & Parsi women re-entry (Gujarat) — the other tagged matters shaping the same Reference.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing the 2018 verdict Bench (5 judges) with the 2026 Review Bench (9 judges) — different sizes and different composition.
• Assuming the 9-judge Bench has delivered a final verdict — as of July 2026, judgment is only reserved, not pronounced.
• Mixing up Article 25 (individual freedom of religion) with Article 26 (denominational institutional autonomy) — the case turns on tension between both and Articles 14/21.
• Wrongly attributing the case only to Kerala/Hindu practice — the Reference's scope spans Parsi, Muslim, and Dawoodi Bohra matters too (66 tagged cases).
• Misremembering the dissent in 2018 — it was Justice Indu Malhotra, not any other judge.

11. Sources

• [S1] Sabarimala Review | Nine-judge Bench to commence arguments from 7 April 2026 — https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sabarimala-review-nine-judge-bench-to-commence-arguments-from-7-april-2026/ — (tier: 4)
• [S2] 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)
• [S3] "SC says courts cannot reform matters of faith," The Hindu, 30 April 2026 — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-04-30/th_international/articleGUDFTUQUA-14421495.ece — (tier: 4, article excerpt)