Supreme Court Constitutes Nine-Judge Bench to Hear Sabarimala Review, Reopening Key Constitutional Questions

The Supreme Court on Saturday formally notified the constitution of a nine-judge Constitution Bench to hear the long-pending review petitions arising from the Sabarimala Verdict (2018), reviving a complex constitutional debate that has remained pending for nearly six years and is expected to significantly shape the jurisprudence on religion and fundamental rights.

The bench will be headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and will include Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale, and Joymalya Bagchi.

The matter pertains to review petitions challenging the 2018 ruling that permitted entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple. The issue was last substantively heard in February 2020 and is now scheduled for hearing from April 7, with arguments expected to conclude by April 22.

A three-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant had earlier issued procedural directions for hearing the reference, clarifying that the constitution and composition of the nine-judge bench would be determined administratively by the Chief Justice. That process has now been completed with Saturday’s formal notification.

The Court has already settled the preliminary question regarding maintainability, having ruled in February 2020 that questions of law can be referred to a larger bench even while review petitions are pending. With this issue resolved, the Court will now proceed to examine the substantive constitutional questions.

The reference order frames several significant issues, including the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the meaning of “constitutional morality,” the extent of judicial review over religious practices, and the definition of “essential religious practices.” It also raises questions on whether judicial intervention is permissible at the instance of petitioners who are not members of the concerned religious denomination.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, had submitted that the Centre supports the review petitions, effectively opposing the earlier ruling that enabled entry of women of all ages into the shrine.

The Sabarimala reference will also be heard alongside other long-pending constitutional matters involving religious practices, including the case concerning excommunication within the Dawoodi Bohra community—one of the oldest pending Constitution Bench matters—as well as issues relating to the religious identity of Parsi women who marry outside their faith under the Special Marriage Act.

The revival of the reference marks a significant judicial step after years of procedural uncertainty. The forthcoming hearings are expected to have far-reaching implications on the balance between religious freedom, equality, denominational rights, and the scope of judicial intervention in matters of faith.