Context

Recently, the Supreme Court of India scheduled hearings on review petitions against its 2018 Sabarimala judgment for April 7, 2026. A nine-judge Constitution Bench will examine whether the 2018 verdict, which allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple should be reviewed. The Bench will also address broader constitutional questions concerning gender equality and religious practices.

Background of the Case

Traditional Practice

• The temple historically barred women aged 10–50 years, citing the celibate (Naishtika Brahmachari) nature of Lord Ayyappa.

Kerala High Court (1991)

• The Kerala High Court upheld the restriction as consistent with custom and directed authorities to enforce it.

Supreme Court (2018 Judgment)

• A five-judge Constitution Bench (4:1 majority) struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
• The 2018 verdict allowed the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple, thereby removing the earlier restriction.
• The Court held that the exclusion of women violated Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution.
• It ruled that the restriction did not constitute an essential religious practice under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
• The judgment emphasized that constitutional values of equality and dignity prevail over discriminatory customs.

Post-Verdict Developments

• Widespread protests occurred during the pilgrimage season.
• Review petitions were filed, and the matter was referred to a larger bench in 2019.
• In 2020, a nine-judge bench framed broad constitutional questions concerning the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine.

Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine

• The doctrine originated in the Shirur Mutt Case (1954).
• The Supreme Court held that only practices that are essential and integral to a religion are protected under Articles 25 and 26.
• Courts determine whether a practice is essential based on:
• Religious texts and doctrines
• Historical continuity
• Centrality to the religion

Criticism of the ERP Doctrine

• It places the judiciary in the role of interpreting theology.
• It introduces subjectivity in determining what qualifies as “essential.”
• It creates tension between religious autonomy and constitutional morality.

Key Issues Before the Nine-Judge Bench

• The scope and future of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine.
• The balance between individual fundamental rights and group religious rights.
• The extent of judicial intervention in religious customs.

Conclusion

The Sabarimala case is not merely about temple entry; it represents a broader constitutional debate on reconciling gender justice, religious freedom, and judicial review.

The upcoming verdict may redefine the contours of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine and shape the future of religious rights jurisprudence in India, reinforcing the principle that religious freedom operates within the framework of constitutional morality and equality.