Supreme Court begins review of 2018 ruling on Sabarimala shrine

Now I have enough grounded facts from the article and Tier 4 sources to write the note.

1. At a Glance

• The Supreme Court is hearing a nine-judge Constitution Bench reference, led by CJI Surya Kant, re-examining the 2018 Sabarimala judgment's use of the "essential religious practices" (ERP) doctrine [S1][S3].
• The reference goes beyond Sabarimala to cover multi-faith religious freedom questions — Muslim women's entry into mosques, and Parsi women marrying outside the community [S3].
• Core constitutional tension: judicial review of religious practice (Article 25/26) vs. legislative primacy on religious reform — a recurring UPSC theme linking secularism, gender justice, and separation of powers [S1].
• High-yield for GS-II (Polity) — tests understanding of fundamental rights limitations, denominational rights, and evolving SC jurisprudence.

2. Why in the News

• On Tuesday, 7 April 2026, the nine-judge Bench began hearing arguments in the Sabarimala reference; Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked that "social ills cannot be branded and passed off as essential religious practices" [S1].
• Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, argued that the legislature, not courts, drives religious reform, invoking the Preamble's guarantee of liberty of belief, faith, and worship [S1].
• The hearing is meant to evolve a "judicial policy" for constitutional courts adjudicating religious-freedom disputes under Articles 25 and 26 [S1].

3. Background & Evolution

• 28 September 2018: A 5-judge Constitution Bench ruled 4:1 (Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Nariman, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud in majority; Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting) that the ban on entry of women aged 10–50 into Sabarimala temple (Kerala) was unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 [S2].
• Numerous review petitions were filed against the 2018 verdict.
• 14 November 2019: A 5-judge Bench (by 3:2) referred the matter to a larger bench, keeping the review petitions pending, and framed broader questions on the scope of judicial review over "essential religious practices" across faiths (not deciding the original 2018 ruling's operation) [S2].
• The reference was clubbed with related matters — Muslim women's mosque entry, Parsi women's exclusion after inter-faith marriage, female genital cutting among Dawoodi Bohras [S3].
• 2026: A 9-judge Constitution Bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, was constituted; hearings commenced 7 April 2026 [S1][S3].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional - Tests the balance between individual fundamental rights (Art. 25) and group/denominational rights (Art. 26) [S1][S3]. - Raises the separation-of-powers question: can courts overrule religious custom absent legislative action? SG Mehta invoked the Preamble's liberty clause to argue against judicial overreach [S1]. - Sets precedent for testing "essentiality" across religions uniformly — an attempt to standardize ERP jurisprudence.

Social - Directly engages gender justice — women's access to shrines/mosques, exclusion after inter-faith marriage [S1][S3]. - Risk of practices harmful to vulnerable groups being shielded as "religious" — Justice Nagarathna's remark on "social ills" masquerading as ERP [S1].

Governance / Ethical - Questions institutional competence: should unelected judges assess theological essentiality, or is this a legislative/executive domain? [S1] - Balances majoritarian religious sentiment against constitutional morality — a recurring SC theme since Naz Foundation and Sabarimala lines of cases.

Historical - Builds on precedents: Shirur Mutt (1954) origin of the ERP doctrine, Shayara Bano (2017, triple talaq), and the 2018 Sabarimala verdict itself.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 2026: Nine-judge Constitution Bench constituted under CJI Surya Kant to hear the pending 2019 reference [S3].
• 7 April 2026: First day of hearings; exchange between Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta on ERP doctrine and legislative vs. judicial reform [S1].
• Bench clubbed Sabarimala issue with Parsi women excommunication and Muslim women's mosque entry petitions for a composite ruling on religious freedom doctrine [S3].

7. Prelims Hooks

• 2018 Sabarimala verdict: 4:1 majority, Constitution Bench of 5 judges [S2].
• Dissenting judge in 2018 verdict: Justice Indu Malhotra [S2].
• 2018 verdict struck down the ban citing violation of Articles 14, 15, 17, 25 [S2].
• Review referred to larger bench on 14 November 2019 by a 3:2 majority [S2].
• Current review bench size: 9 judges [S3].
• Current CJI leading the bench: Surya Kant [S3].
• Hearings on the reference commenced: 7 April 2026 [S1].
• Doctrine under examination: "Essential Religious Practices" (ERP) test, originating from Shirur Mutt case (1954).
• Articles at the core of the reference: Article 25 (individual religious freedom) and Article 26 (denominational autonomy) [S1].
• Sabarimala temple location: Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.
• Union government's position: religious reform is the legislature's domain, not the judiciary's [S1].
• Related matters clubbed with Sabarimala reference: Muslim women's mosque entry, Parsi women's excommunication post inter-faith marriage [S3].
• Original petitioner body: Indian Young Lawyers Association.
• Justice on the bench quoted in April 2026 hearing: B.V. Nagarathna [S1].

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity & Governance — "Separation of powers between various organs, dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions"; Fundamental Rights (Articles 25–26); judicial review and its scope.
• GS-I: Social issues — women's rights, gender equity in religious institutions.
• Possible Mains question stems: 1. "Discuss the doctrine of 'Essential Religious Practices' and critically examine the challenges courts face in adjudicating it." (GS-II) 2. "Does the resolution of religious freedom disputes lie with the legislature or the judiciary? Discuss with reference to the Sabarimala reference before the Supreme Court." (GS-II) 3. "Examine the tension between individual fundamental rights and group religious rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution." (GS-I/GS-II)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Shirur Mutt case (1954) — origin of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine.
• Triple Talaq / Shayara Bano judgment (2017) — parallel personal-law reform via judiciary.
• Uniform Civil Code debate — legislature vs. judiciary role in religious reform.
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28) — full constitutional scheme.
• Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 — the subordinate legislation originally challenged in Sabarimala.
• Haji Ali Dargah case — comparable women's entry dispute in a different faith.
• Doctrine of basic structure & judicial review powers — theoretical backdrop to SC's intervention powers.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing the 2018 verdict bench (5 judges, 4:1) with the current review bench (9 judges) — different compositions, different mandates.
• Assuming the 9-judge bench is deciding the Sabarimala entry question itself — it is actually deciding the broader doctrinal/judicial-policy question on ERP across religions, not re-litigating temple entry per se [S1][S3].
• Mixing up Article 25 (individual right) with Article 26 (denominational/group right) — a frequent Prelims trap.
• Misattributing the dissent in 2018 — it was Justice Indu Malhotra, not a male judge.
• Assuming this is a Kerala-specific issue only — the reference now spans Hindu, Muslim, and Parsi practices.

11. Sources

• [S1] Supreme Court begins review of 2018 ruling on Sabarimala shrine — The Hindu (article excerpt provided) — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-04-08/th_international/articleGVPFQQAO2-14160123.ece — (tier: 4)
• [S2] Sabarimala Judgment Explained: 2018 Verdict & 9-Judge Reference for UPSC — https://anantamias.com/sabarimala-judgement/ — (tier: 4)
• [S3] Sabarimala Reference | Day 1: Union challenges essential religious practices test — Supreme Court Observer — https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sabarimala-review-day-1-of-the-9-judge-constitution-bench-hearing/ — (tier: 4)