New Delhi: India’s constitutional debate on the balance between religious customs and fundamental rights has entered a निर्णायक phase, as the Supreme Court of India began final hearings in the Sabarimala review case on April 7, 2026.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant is examining whether age-old religious practices can override constitutional guarantees such as equality and individual rights.
The Sabarimala Temple is one of India’s most prominent pilgrimage sites, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, revered as a celibate deity or Naishtika Brahmachari. The temple, located in Kerala’s Western Ghats, attracts millions of devotees annually.
Traditionally, women of menstruating age were restricted from entering the shrine, a practice rooted in the belief surrounding the deity’s celibacy. The temple is administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board.
How the controversy began
The issue gained national attention in 2006 when a petition was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging the ban on women’s entry.
The petition argued that the restriction violated fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly equality and freedom of worship.
In 2018, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark 4:1 verdict allowing women of all ages to enter the temple, ruling that biological factors cannot determine access to religious spaces.
Protests and review petitions
The 2018 verdict triggered widespread protests across Kerala, especially at key entry points like Nilakkal and Pamba. The situation escalated when two women, Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga, entered the temple in 2019, marking a historic but controversial moment.
Following the unrest, more than 50 review petitions were filed by various groups, including the Nair Service Society, urging the court to reconsider its decision.
In 2019, a five-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench, acknowledging that the case raised broader constitutional questions beyond Sabarimala.
Key constitutional questions
The current hearings go beyond the temple issue and aim to establish a wider legal framework governing religion and rights in India.
The bench is examining critical questions, including:
- Can constitutional morality override essential religious practices?
- What defines an “essential religious practice”?
- Can individuals outside a religion challenge its customs?
- How should courts balance Article 25 (freedom of religion) with Article 14 (right to equality)?
These questions are expected to shape the future of religious freedoms in India.
Wider impact across religions
The outcome of the Sabarimala case could influence several other religious matters currently under judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court is also considering issues such as:
- Entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs
- Rights of Parsi women married outside the faith to enter fire temples
- Practices within the Dawoodi Bohra community, including excommunication and female genital mutilation
This makes the case a landmark moment not just for one temple, but for multiple faiths across the country.
Government and stakeholders’ stand
The Travancore Devaswom Board has urged the court to adopt a “community-centric” approach and avoid interference in long-standing traditions.
Meanwhile, the Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has supported the review petitions, signalling its inclination to revisit the 2018 verdict.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala case has evolved into one of the most significant constitutional battles in India’s history. At its core lies a fundamental question: in a modern democracy, should religious customs prevail over individual rights, or must they align with constitutional principles?
The Supreme Court’s final verdict, expected after the conclusion of hearings later this month, is likely to redefine the boundaries between faith and law in India for generations to come.