India
-Gaurav Sharma
The Kerala government has urged the Supreme Court to seek expert views before deciding on long‑standing Sabarimala temple traditions, including age‑based restrictions on women devotees. A 9‑judge Constitution Bench will hear wider constitutional issues linked to the 2018 verdict allowing women of all ages entry into the shrine.
The State, which earlier opposed the curbs on women’s entry, has now shifted position in written submissions. It argued that any judicial scrutiny of old religious customs should follow broad consultation with specialists in Hindu theology and social reform, rather than relying only on abstract legal reasoning or popular opinion.
The Kerala government urged the Supreme Court to consult Hindu theology experts before deciding on Sabarimala temple traditions like women’s entry, shifting its prior stance. A 9-judge bench will address broader constitutional issues on religious freedom on April 7, 2026.
Sabarimala case, Article 25 and Supreme Court review
In its affidavit, Kerala stated that the court’s focus under Article 25 should not be whether a ritual seems rational or emotionally acceptable. Instead, the court should assess if a belief is sincerely and honestly held as part of religious practice, and whether it is genuinely integrated with the way followers observe their faith.
The State referred to an earlier counter affidavit dated 13.11.2007, filed on behalf of Kerala. It said any judicial review of a religious practice “followed for so many years connected with the belief and values accepted by the people” must happen only after “wide consultation and after soliciting views of eminent religious scholars and reputed social reformers of that religion.”
Sabarimala inputs from religious scholars and social reformers
The written note emphasised that the court should not act as the first interpreter of complex rituals. “A decision in this regard should be rendered by the court after assessing the opinions of social reformers and religious scholars as an impartial authority,” the bench said. The State aligned itself with this approach in its submissions.
The document, filed through Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta and Advocate Nishe Rajen Shonker, added that feedback from devotees should also carry weight. It stated that “previous experience in the matter of the Sabarimala shrine and the response of devotees, including women devotees, would support the above submission.”
Sabarimala hearing: key constitutional questions framed by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has framed seven broad questions for the 9‑judge bench, which will start hearings on 7 April 2026. These issues go beyond Sabarimala, and will guide future cases on faith, equality and the rights of religious denominations under Part III of the Constitution.
| Sl. No. | Issue framed for the 9‑judge bench |
|---|---|
| 1 | How freedoms of religion in Articles 25 and 26 interact with other fundamental rights in Part III. |
| 2 | The scope of “public order, morality and health” under Article 25(1). |
| 3 | The meaning and range of “morality” in Articles 25 and 26, and whether it includes constitutional morality. |
| 4 | The limits of judicial review in identifying what counts as essential religious practices. |
| 5 | The interpretation of the phrase “Sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b). |
| 6 | Whether essential religious practices receive protection specifically under Article 26. |
| 7 | Whether someone outside a religious denomination can challenge its practices through a PIL. |
These questions emerged from review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s 28 September 2018 judgment. That verdict struck down the bar on women aged between 10 and 50 entering the Sabarimala temple, treating the exclusion as inconsistent with constitutional guarantees, including equality and religious freedom.
The bench hearing the wider issues will not reopen the facts of the Sabarimala dispute alone. Instead, it will set legal tests for future conflicts where religious autonomy appears to clash with rights such as non‑discrimination, dignity and access to places of public worship in India.
