Sabarimala Review: Supreme Court Nine-Judge Bench Begins Hearing April 2026

The Supreme Court of India has constituted a nine-judge bench to hear the long-pending review of its 2018 Sabarimala judgment, with hearings commencing on April 7, 2026. The 2018 verdict by a five-judge Constitution Bench had struck down the centuries-old practice barring women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple in Kerala. The review bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, will examine not only the Sabarimala question but a broader cluster of cases concerning the interplay between the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Composition and Schedule of the Nine-Judge Bench

The bench comprises Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, and Joymalya Bagchi. The hearing schedule has been structured in phases: review petitioners and their supporters will be heard from April 7 to 9, 2026. The original writ petitioners opposing the review will present their arguments from April 14 to 16, 2026. Rejoinder submissions are scheduled for April 21, 2026, followed by final and concluding submissions by the learned amicus curiae, expected to conclude by April 22, 2026. This structured approach reflects the Court's intent to give all parties adequate hearing time while maintaining pace on a case that has been pending for nearly eight years.

The 2018 Judgment and the Questions It Raised

In September 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that the blanket exclusion of women of menstruating age from Sabarimala temple violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. The majority held that the practice amounted to discrimination based on a biological characteristic and that the right to worship was available to all devotees equally. Justice Indu Malhotra, in her sole dissent, argued that the Court should not interfere with the essential religious practices of a faith and that the exclusion was a matter of religious denomination rights under Article 26. The dissent raised questions about the limits of judicial review over religious practices, which became the catalyst for the review petitions and the referral to a larger bench.

Broader Scope: Religious Freedom Across Multiple Faiths

The nine-judge bench will not limit itself to the Sabarimala question alone. The connected cases include issues such as the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, and the rights of Parsi women who marry outside the community to continue participating in Parsi religious ceremonies and institutions. By clubbing these matters together, the Court is poised to deliver a comprehensive pronouncement on the scope and ambit of religious freedom under the Indian Constitution. The central constitutional question is whether courts can examine and override religious practices on the touchstone of fundamental rights, or whether the autonomy of religious denominations under Article 26 creates a zone of non-interference. The answer will have far-reaching consequences for how India balances constitutional morality with religious tradition.

Practical Significance and What to Watch

This hearing is among the most constitutionally significant proceedings in India in recent years. The outcome will define the boundaries of Articles 25 and 26, affecting not only temple entry but also personal law reform, religious endowment management, and the relationship between state regulation and religious autonomy. Religious institutions and trusts across India should pay close attention to the proceedings, as the judgment could reshape the legal framework governing internal religious practices. For legal practitioners, the arguments on essential religious practices doctrine, the role of constitutional morality, and the limits of judicial review over faith-based exclusions will generate jurisprudence that shapes constitutional law for decades. The structured hearing schedule suggests that a judgment could follow within months of the final hearing, potentially before the end of 2026.