Sabarimala 9-Judge Constitution Bench: What the April 2026 Hearing Will Decide

The Supreme Court of India has scheduled the commencement of hearings before a nine-judge Constitution Bench on April 7, 2026, with a timetable that targets conclusion by April 22, 2026. The Bench will address the constitutional questions that emerged from the review petitions filed after the Supreme Court's landmark 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which permitted women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple. The 2026 hearings involve 67 petitions and will require the Court to define the scope and limits of the essential religious practices doctrine under the Indian Constitution.

Background: The 2018 Judgment and the Reference

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held by a four-to-one majority that the exclusion of women between the ages of ten and fifty from the Sabarimala temple violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution. The majority held that the restriction was not an essential religious practice of the Ayyappa faith and therefore did not enjoy constitutional protection under Article 25, which protects freedom of religion including the right to manage religious affairs. Review petitions were filed challenging the judgment, and in November 2019 a five-judge Bench, by a three-to-two majority, referred the matter to a larger Bench for consideration of broader questions. Those broader questions have been pending before the nine-judge Bench since then.

The Core Constitutional Question: Essential Religious Practices

The essential religious practices doctrine, also called the ERP doctrine, was developed by the Supreme Court over decades to distinguish between practices that are central or essential to a religion, which are protected under Article 25, and those that are merely peripheral, which are not. Only essential practices enjoy the full weight of constitutional protection from state interference. The doctrine has been applied across a wide range of religious disputes: entry to temples, the use of loudspeakers for religious gatherings, the carrying of kirpans, animal sacrifice, and the entry of non-Hindus into temple precincts. Critics of the doctrine argue that courts are ill-equipped to determine what is or is not essential to a religion, effectively substituting judicial theology for religious tradition.

The Questions Before the Nine-Judge Bench

The nine-judge Bench is expected to address several interlocking constitutional questions. First, what is the correct test for determining whether a practice is essential to a religion, and how should courts approach this inquiry? Second, how should the ERP doctrine be balanced against equality rights under Articles 14 and 15, which prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth? Third, does the right of a religious denomination under Article 26 to manage its own affairs in matters of religion include the right to restrict entry to places of worship on grounds that would otherwise constitute discrimination? Fourth, does the exclusion of women from religious spaces on grounds linked to physiological characteristics amount to untouchability under Article 17? The answers to these questions will have implications far beyond Sabarimala, shaping the constitutional framework applicable to dozens of ongoing religious entry disputes across India.

Why This Bench Matters Beyond Sabarimala

A nine-judge Constitution Bench decision carries the highest authority in India's constitutional hierarchy. Any ruling will bind all lower courts and all future Benches of smaller composition. The outcome will directly affect pending litigation on the entry of women into the Shani Shingnapur temple in Maharashtra and the Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai, as well as challenges to temple entry restrictions based on caste or community in several states. More broadly, if the Bench narrows the ERP doctrine, it will make it harder for religious institutions to claim constitutional protection for entry restrictions. If it expands or recalibrates the doctrine, it may afford greater protection to traditional religious practices against constitutional challenge. The April 2026 hearings are therefore among the most consequential constitutional proceedings of this generation.

Practical Takeaways

Legal practitioners handling religious institution litigation, temple trust disputes, or matters involving the rights of religious denominations under Articles 25 and 26 should track the Sabarimala Constitution Bench hearings closely. The questions being addressed will clarify fundamental principles on which a large body of Indian religious law depends. For religious institutions and trusts currently facing challenges to their practices on constitutional grounds, the outcome will directly affect the strength of their legal defences. For civil society organisations and petitioners pursuing equal access claims against religious institutions, the Bench's articulation of the relationship between equality and religious freedom will define the scope of what relief courts can grant. The April 7 to 22 hearing schedule is tight, and a ruling could follow within months of the conclusion of arguments.