New Delhi, April 21, 2026 — India's Supreme Court is currently grappling with profound constitutional questions balancing religious freedom against equality rights, as a nine-judge Constitution Bench hears arguments in the review of its 2018 Sabarimala verdict. The bench has raised concerns about whether courts can intervene in religious practices perceived as exclusionary, warning against "hollowing out" religions in the name of social reform.
The hearing, which began on April 7, 2026, under Chief Justice Surya Kant and eight other justices, addresses seven key constitutional issues referred from review petitions challenging the 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala*. That ruling had struck down the centuries-old practice at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, which barred women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from entering the shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, citing the deity's celibate nature. The court had held the exclusion violated Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution.
During recent proceedings, the bench has questioned the limits of judicial intervention in faith. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that one of the most difficult tasks for the court is declaring the beliefs of millions as "incorrect or erroneous." The judges emphasized that essential religious practices cannot be stripped away under the guise of reform, stating, "No religion can be hollowed out in the name of social welfare and reform."
Senior Advocate M.R. Venkatesh, appearing for one of the review petitioners (Aathmaartham Trust), argued that the menstruation-based exclusion is not discriminatory but a "voluntary religious discipline" and belief rooted in tradition. He noted that in many South Indian communities, women voluntarily refrain from entering temples or performing puja at home during menstruation, describing it as a matter of ritual purity rather than bias. Venkatesh referenced Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's distinction between untouchability and temporary ritual impurity, urging the court to respect religious autonomy under Articles 25 and 26.
The bench is examining the "essential religious practices" test, which has guided judicial scrutiny of faith matters for decades. Questions before the court include the interplay between religious freedoms (Articles 25-26) and equality provisions, the scope of public interest litigation in religious disputes, and whether courts should defer to community beliefs or prioritize constitutional morality and gender equality.
Observers see the case as a potential reset in India's religion jurisprudence. The 2018 verdict had sparked widespread protests and political debate, with critics arguing it undermined Hindu traditions. Review petitions followed, leading to the larger bench reference. Similar tensions have appeared in other matters, such as discussions on uniform civil code and inheritance rights, where the court has described UCC as a "constitutional ambition" not inherently tied to targeting any religion.
Legal experts note that the outcome could influence how the judiciary handles other faith-based exclusions or practices across religions, potentially refining the boundaries between individual rights and collective religious identity.
The hearing is ongoing, with the bench continuing to hear submissions on maintainability and substantive issues. No final decision has been announced, but the proceedings underscore the Supreme Court's role in navigating India's secular framework amid diverse religious practices.
This matter highlights enduring debates in Indian constitutional law: the extent to which equality rights can reform or limit religious customs, and whether judicial oversight risks eroding the autonomy of faith communities. The court's questions reflect a cautious approach, seeking to protect both constitutional guarantees of equality and the integrity of religious beliefs.
For More News Updates Follow Us On www.tconews.in
