Context:
A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court will begin hearings from April 7, 2026, to review the 2018 Sabarimala verdict that permitted women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
Key Highlights:
- Background of the Case
- In September 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban on women aged 10–50 years entering the temple was unconstitutional.
- The judgment held that such restrictions violated gender equality and fundamental rights.
- Judicial Developments
- Over 60 review and writ petitions challenged the 2018 verdict.
- In 2019, a Constitution Bench referred the case to a larger bench to address broader constitutional questions.
- Issues Under Examination
- The scope of the doctrine of essential religious practices.
- The extent of judicial intervention in religious matters.
- Balancing religious freedom with fundamental rights.
- Related Issues Clubbed
The court also linked similar constitutional questions involving:
- Entry of Muslim women into mosques
- Female genital mutilation practices in the Dawoodi Bohra community
Relevant Prelims Points:
- Sabarimala Temple
- Located in Kerala’s Pathanamthitta district.
- Dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.
- Traditionally followed a custom restricting entry of women of menstruating age.
- Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices
- Developed by the Supreme Court to determine which religious practices receive constitutional protection.
- Only practices fundamental to religion are protected under Article 25 and 26.
- Articles Involved
- Article 25: Freedom of religion.
- Article 14: Equality before law.
- Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination.
Relevant Mains Points:
- Gender Justice vs Religious Freedom
- The case highlights the conflict between constitutional morality and traditional religious practices.
- Courts must balance individual rights with community religious autonomy.
- Judicial Review of Religious Practices
- The Essential Religious Practices doctrine has been criticized for allowing courts to interpret religious doctrines.
- Raises questions about judicial overreach vs protection of fundamental rights.
- Social and Political Implications
- The Sabarimala issue triggered nationwide debates on gender equality, religious traditions, and secularism.
- Demonstrates the challenges in reforming deeply rooted cultural practices.
- Way Forward
- Develop clear constitutional principles for balancing religious freedom with equality.
- Encourage dialogue between religious communities and constitutional institutions.
- Promote progressive reforms while respecting cultural sensitivities.
UPSC Relevance:
- GS Paper II: Polity – Fundamental Rights, Judicial Review, Constitutional interpretation.
- GS Paper I: Indian Society – Gender equality, social reform debates.
- Prelims: Articles 14, 15, 25 and the Essential Religious Practices doctrine.