The Supreme Court on 16 February ordered that a 9 judge Constitution Bench will commence hearings on the issues arising from the review of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict from April 7, 2026. The matter concerns review petitions and connected writ petitions linked to the judgment that permitted women of all age groups to enter the Bhagwan Ayyappa temple in Kerala.
The proceedings before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, addressed preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the reference. The court noted that this question had already been settled in February 2020, when it held that questions could be referred to a larger bench even at the review stage. It observed that the issue had attained finality and would not delay further consideration.
The court directed all parties to file written submissions by March 14, 2026, and fixed a detailed schedule for oral arguments.
Petitioners supporting the review and related parties will be heard from April 7 to April 9.
Those opposing the review will present arguments from April 14 to April 16, followed by rejoinder submissions on April 21.
Final submissions by the amicus curiae are expected to conclude by April 22.
The court instructed counsel to adhere strictly to the timeline and asked nodal counsel to coordinate internal arrangements to ensure completion within the allotted period.
Chief Justice Kant emphasised that the nine-judge bench hearing takes precedence and asked lawyers to keep their calendars clear.
He also indicated that continuous hearings would be provided and that overlapping matters could be taken up together where necessary.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the Union of India supports the review, a position echoed by Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi suggested grouping parties broadly into those supporting and those opposing women’s entry into the temple.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Menaka Guruswamy appeared for petitioners supporting entry of women, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the State of Kerala.
The court appointed Krishan Kumar Singh as nodal counsel for the review petitioners and directed Advocate-on-Record Shivam Singh to assist amicus K. Parmeswar and prepare written submissions reflecting the positions of all parties. It clarified that the nine-judge bench will be formally constituted by the Chief Justice through an administrative order.
The case also encompasses broader constitutional questions raised in related petitions, including issues concerning entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, the rights of Parsi women married outside the community to enter Fire Temples, and the legal validity of female genital mutilation within the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Background
The Sabarimala dispute revolves around the traditional restriction on women between the ages of 10 and 50 entering the Ayyappa shrine, a practice rooted in long-standing custom.
In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld the restriction, finding it to be an established tradition consistent with law.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the practice violated constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom of worship. The matter was eventually referred to a Constitution Bench in 2017.
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge bench delivered a 4:1 ruling striking down the restriction. The majority held that exclusion based on biological factors could not override constitutional rights, while Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, cautioning against judicial interference in matters of faith.
On January 2, 2019, two women entered the shrine under police protection, triggering protests and subsequent purification rituals by temple authorities. Following more than 60 review petitions, the Supreme Court in 2019 decided to place the broader legal questions before a larger bench.
In January 2020, the court constituted a nine-judge bench to examine fundamental issues including the scope of religious freedom under Article 25, the relationship between individual rights and denominational rights under Article 26, the meaning of “morality” in the constitutional context, the extent of judicial review over religious practices, interpretation of “sections of Hindus” under Article 25(2)(b), and whether persons outside a denomination can challenge its practices through public interest litigation.
