SC to hear in April pleas on Sabarimala women entry ruling

1. At a Glance

• The Supreme Court has fixed April 7–22, 2026 as the hearing schedule for review/writ petitions against its September 2018 Sabarimala judgment, before a 9-judge Constitution Bench [S1][S3].
• Tests aspirants on doctrine of essential religious practices, Article 25/26 religious freedom, and reference jurisprudence (how larger benches are constituted) — a recurring GS-II/Constitutional law theme.
• Case is tagged with 66 other matters, including Muslim women's entry into mosques, Parsi women's entry into Fire Temples, and Dawoodi Bohra female genital mutilation (FGM) practice — making it a template "religious freedom vs. individual rights" question [S3].

2. Why in the News

• On Monday (16 Feb 2026), a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant scheduled the Sabarimala review/writ petitions for hearing before a 9-judge Bench starting April 7, 2026 [S3].
• SC subsequently notified the 9-judge Bench formally, confirming hearings commence 7 April 2026 [S1].

3. Background & Evolution

• September 2018: 5-judge Constitution Bench (4:1 majority) held the Sabarimala Temple's bar on entry of women aged 10–50 ("menstruating age") unconstitutional, allowing entry to Lord Ayyappa temple in Kerala [S1][S3].
• Numerous review petitions filed against the 2018 verdict.
• November 2019: 5-judge Bench led by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by majority, referred the Sabarimala review/writ petitions to a 7-judge Bench, and clubbed similar "essentiality of religious practice" matters (Muslim women's mosque entry, Dawoodi Bohra FGM) with it [S3].
• 2019: A 9-judge Bench was constituted by then-CJI Sharad A. Bobde to decide preliminary questions, including maintainability of review petitions [S3].
• Hearings before that Bench were aborted due to onset of COVID-19 pandemic [S3].
• February 2026: CJI Surya Kant's Bench noted maintainability had already been settled by the 2019 Bench, and fixed the substantive hearing timeline for April 2026 [S3].
• April 2026: 9-judge Bench formally notified; hearings commenced April 7 as scheduled [S1].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional - Tests interplay of Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 26 (religious denomination's right to manage affairs), and Article 14/15 (equality, non-discrimination) [S1]. - Involves the judicially evolved "essential religious practices" test — whether a practice is core to a religion and thus protected, or a peripheral social custom subject to constitutional morality. - Raises procedural question of doctrine of precedent/reference: can a larger bench revisit a final judgment via review, and can unrelated matters (mosque entry, FGM) be clubbed under one reference.

Social - Central to gender justice and women's equality debate — exclusion based on menstrual status. - Broader ramifications for practices excluding women in other faiths (mosques, Fire Temples), signalling a cross-religious equality lens.

Governance / Ethical - Tests judicial process transparency: petitions pending since 2018, delayed by COVID, highlighting judicial backlog and case management in constitutional matters. - Balancing individual fundamental rights vs. group/community autonomy in matters of faith.

Historical - Continuation of India's line of "essential practices" jurisprudence dating to Shirur Mutt case (1954) — used to test constitutional validity of religious customs.

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 16 February 2026: SC Bench (CJI Surya Kant) schedules Sabarimala review petitions for hearing from April 7, 2026, before 9-judge Bench [S3].
• 2026 (post-February): SC formally notifies constitution of the 9-judge Bench; hearing commences on schedule from April 7 [S1].
• Bench lays down a strict timeline (7–22 April 2026) for petitioners, respondents, rejoinder, and amicus curiae submissions, with parties directed to adhere to it [S3].

7. Prelims Hooks

• 2018 Sabarimala judgment: case name Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala [S1].
• 2018 verdict delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench, ratio 4:1 [S1].
• 2018 judgment allowed entry of women of menstruating age (10–50 years) into Sabarimala temple [S1][S3].
• November 2019: review referred to a 7-judge Bench by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi [S3].
• 9-judge Bench first constituted in 2019 by then-CJI Sharad A. Bobde [S3].
• That 2019 hearing was aborted due to COVID-19 [S3].
• Current 9-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant [S1][S3].
• Hearings scheduled: April 7–9 (review petitioners), April 14–16 (opponents), April 21 (rejoinder), April 22 (amicus curiae) [S3].
• 66 connected matters tagged with Sabarimala review, including Muslim women's mosque entry and Dawoodi Bohra FGM issue [S3].
• Sabarimala temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, located in Kerala [S1].
• Legal doctrine tested: "essential religious practices" test [S1].

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II — Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights (Articles 25, 26); Judiciary — structure, organisation, functioning; Judgments/reference to larger benches.
• GS-I — Social empowerment, role of women, issues related to gender.
• Plausible Mains stems: 1. "Discuss the constitutional basis of the 'essential religious practices' doctrine. How has the Sabarimala case tested the balance between individual rights and religious autonomy?" (GS-II) 2. "Examine the implications of clubbing dissimilar religious-freedom cases (Sabarimala, mosque entry, FGM) under a single reference to a larger Supreme Court bench." (GS-II) 3. "Gender justice often comes into conflict with religious customs in India. Critically analyse with reference to recent Supreme Court proceedings." (GS-I/GS-II)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 25 & 26 — Freedom of Religion: direct constitutional basis of the case.
• Essential Religious Practices doctrine (Shirur Mutt case, 1954): judicial test being applied.
• Triple Talaq judgment (Shayara Bano case, 2017): comparable gender-religion rights precedent.
• Right of Muslim women to enter mosques: tagged matter, parallel essential-practices issue.
• Dawoodi Bohra FGM practice case: tagged matter, bodily autonomy vs. religious custom.
• Doctrine of Precedent & Curative/Review Jurisdiction of SC: procedural angle of how reviews escalate to larger benches.
• Uniform Civil Code debate: broader socio-legal context of religion vs. individual rights.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Do not confuse the 2018 judgment bench size (5 judges) with the current review bench size (9 judges) — aspirants often merge these.
• The 2019 referral was to a 7-judge Bench by CJI Gogoi; the 9-judge Bench was separately constituted by CJI Bobde the same year — these are two distinct steps, not one.
• COVID-19 aborted the 2019–20 hearings, not the original 2018 judgment process — don't misdate the disruption.
• The current CJI heading the bench is Surya Kant, not Gogoi or Bobde (who were CJIs during earlier stages) — a common date/name mix-up trap.
• Sabarimala issue is about a temple bar on menstruating-age women, not a general temple-entry-for-all-women issue — precision on the age/context detail matters for prelims.

11. Sources

• [S1] Sabarimala Review | Nine-judge Bench to commence arguments from 7 April 2026 — Supreme Court Observer — https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sabarimala-review-nine-judge-bench-to-commence-arguments-from-7-april-2026/ — (tier: 4)
• [S2] SC notifies 9-judge Bench to hear Sabarimala review from April 7 — The News Minute — https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/sc-notifies-9-judge-bench-to-hear-sabarimala-review-from-april-7 — (tier: 4)
• [S3] SC to hear in April pleas on Sabarimala women entry ruling — The Hindu (17 Feb 2026, print edition, p.3) — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-02-17/th_international/articleGMDFJKNN7-13546729.ece — (tier: 4)