Breaking | Supreme Court's Nine Judge Constitution Bench to Hear Sabarimala Review Reference From April 7
From the Editor's Desk
The Supreme Court on Monday directed that a nine-judge Constitution Bench will begin hearing the reference arising from the Sabarimala review on April 7, 2026. The Court is dealing with review petitions and connected writ petitions linked to the 2018 Sabarimala judgment that opened the Lord Ayyappa temple to women of all ages.
The Court was dealing with review petitions and connected writ petitions stemming from the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, which opened the Lord Ayyappa temple to women of all age groups. The broader batch of cases also raises issues such as access for Muslim women to mosques and dargahs, the entitlement of Parsi women who have married outside the community to enter Fire Temples, and the question of whether female genital mutilation within the Dawoodi Bohra community is legally permissible.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, noted that earlier objections to the maintainability of referring questions to a larger bench in review proceedings had already been settled. The Court recorded: “Objections were then raised to maintainability of the reference, which issue was conclusively determined by this court in February 2020, whereby the 9-judge Bench opined that this Court can refer questions to a larger Bench even in Review. Accordingly, the issue of the maintainability of reference has attained finality and need not detain us at this stage. That being so,...we may advert to the subsequent order dated 10.02.2020 passed by this Court, framing the following 7 questions to be determined by a 9-judge Bench...In this light, and with a view to finally laying to rest the questions of law that remain pending in these matters, we direct the parties to file their written submission on or before 14.03.2026.”
The Court also set out a detailed calendar for oral submissions, indicating that arguments would be heard in phases and that the schedule was intended to ensure continuous hearings and timely completion. "The nine judge bench will begin hearing the Sabarimala review case on April 7, 2026 at 10:30 am. The review petitioners or the party suporting them shall be heard from April 7 to April 9. The ones opposing the review shall be heard on April 14 to April 16. The rejoinder submissions if any will be heard on April 21 followed by the final and concluding submissions by the learned amicus which is expected to be over by April 22. The parties shall adhere to the above time schedule. The nodal counsels in consultation with arguing counsel of the parties shall prepare the internal arrangement so that oral submissions from both sides can be heard within stipulated timeline," the Court directed.
Appearances were led by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manusinghvi and Maneka Guruswamy for parties supporting women’s entry. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union of India, and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the State of Kerala. The Court also issued coordination directions for smoother conduct of the hearings, including arrangements between nodal counsel and arguing counsel to keep submissions within the allotted time.
The Sabarimala dispute concerns the long-followed restriction that prevented women in the 10–50 age group from entering the Ayyappa shrine in Kerala. In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld the practice as part of prevailing custom. The challenge later reached the Supreme Court through a petition filed in 2006 by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, which argued that the exclusion was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights, including equality and freedom of religion.
After the matter was placed before a Constitution Bench in 2017, the Supreme Court delivered its 2018 verdict by a 4:1 majority, striking down the restriction. The decision triggered a wave of review petitions. In 2019, the Court referred the matter to a larger nine-judge bench to examine the wider constitutional questions involved, particularly around how courts should assess religious practices and the contours of religious freedom and denominational rights under the Constitution.
Case Title: Kantaru Rejeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Association; Sabarimala Custom Protection Forum vs Indian Young Lawyers Association
Case No.: (R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006)
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
