A nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, is set to address the long-pending Sabarimala review matter on Tuesday. The case involves petitions raising significant constitutional issues on religious freedom and gender equality. The Bench, which includes Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, will examine the reference arising from review petitions against the 2018 judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple.
The proceedings before the nine-judge Bench will begin at 10.30 a.m. in the Chief Justice’s court and will span multiple days following a pre-fixed schedule. The Supreme Court is expected to review its 2018 verdict and delve into broader constitutional matters, including the interpretation of Article 25 concerning women’s rights to enter places of worship. Besides the Sabarimala issue, the Bench will also address related topics such as the entry of Muslim women into mosques, Parsi women’s access to fire temples post interfaith marriages, excommunication practices, and female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Previously, the CJI Surya Kant-led Bench had outlined a detailed schedule, confirming the reference’s validity and identifying seven key legal questions for consideration. The arguments supporting the review petitions will be heard from April 7 to April 9, followed by submissions from opponents between April 14 and April 16. Any rejoinder submissions will be entertained on April 21, with the amicus curiae’s final arguments expected to conclude on April 22.
The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of adhering to timelines, directing all parties to submit written arguments in advance. Ahead of the hearings, the Travancore Devaswom Board advocated for a “community-centric” approach to religion, urging courts to respect faith-based practices. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the Union government supports the review petitions, asserting that the issue falls within the realm of religious faith and denominational autonomy, beyond judicial review.
