Sabarimala Reference: Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict on Articles 25 and 26 After 16-Day Hearing

The Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, has reserved its verdict in the long-pending Sabarimala reference after 16 days of extensive hearings. The reference, which originated from the 2018 Sabarimala temple entry judgment, examines fundamental questions about the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the scope of religious freedom in India. The verdict, when delivered, is expected to have far-reaching implications not just for the Sabarimala temple in Kerala but for religious freedom jurisprudence across the country, affecting communities including Dawoodi Bohras, Parsis, and others.

How the Sabarimala Reference Reached a 9-Judge Bench

In September 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled 4:1 that the practice of excluding women of menstruating age (10 to 50 years) from the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple in Kerala was unconstitutional. Review petitions were filed against this judgment. In November 2019, a five-judge bench hearing the review petitions referred the matter to a larger bench, framing seven broader questions about religious freedom that went beyond the Sabarimala issue. These questions required examination by a Constitution Bench of nine or more judges. After years of pendency, the nine-judge bench was constituted and commenced hearings in April 2026, concluding after 16 days of arguments from multiple parties and interveners.

Key Constitutional Questions Before the Bench

The nine-judge bench is examining seven questions that go to the heart of religious freedom under the Indian Constitution. The central issue is the relationship between Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs). Article 25 contains the qualifier 'subject to the other provisions of this Part,' while Article 26 does not. This textual difference raises the question of whether Article 26 is a standalone provision that cannot be limited by equality rights under Article 14 or other fundamental rights. The bench is also examining who has the authority to determine 'essential religious practices,' whether courts can adjudicate on matters of religious doctrine, and the scope of constitutional morality as a limiting principle on religious freedom.

Impact Beyond Sabarimala: Dawoodi Bohras, Parsis, and Mosque Entry

While the reference originated from the Sabarimala temple entry dispute, the questions framed by the bench extend well beyond that single case. The verdict will affect several pending matters involving religious freedom across faiths. These include the legality of excommunication practices in the Dawoodi Bohra community, the validity of excommunication in the Parsi community, questions about the entry of Muslim women into dargahs and mosques, and issues related to female genital mutilation practiced by certain communities. The bench's interpretation of the essential religious practices doctrine and the limits of Article 26 will determine how courts handle the tension between individual rights and collective religious autonomy across all these cases.

Articles 25 and 26: The Constitutional Framework Explained

Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. This right is subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights). Article 26 grants every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, establish and maintain institutions, and own and administer property. A critical question in the Sabarimala reference is whether Article 26 operates independently of the equality guarantee under Article 14. If the bench holds that Article 26 is a standalone right, religious denominations would have greater autonomy to set their own rules and practices without being subject to equality-based challenges. If the bench holds otherwise, individual rights to equality and non-discrimination could override denominational practices.

Key Takeaways

The nine-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant has reserved its verdict after 16 days of hearings. The ruling will settle the relationship between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the scope of the essential religious practices doctrine. Its impact extends far beyond the Sabarimala temple entry issue to affect pending cases involving Dawoodi Bohras, Parsis, mosque entry for women, and other religious freedom disputes. The verdict is awaited with significant anticipation and will be one of the most consequential constitutional law pronouncements in recent years. It will shape how Indian courts adjudicate the tension between individual fundamental rights and the collective religious autonomy of denominations for decades to come.