9-judge SC bench to hear pleas from April 7

The Supreme Court on Monday said a nine-judge bench will on April 7 commence the final hearing on petitions relating to discrimination against women at religious places, including Sabarimala Temple, and on the ambit and scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths. In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority verdict, had lifted the ban that prevented females between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Ayyappa shrine at Sabarimala in Kerala and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

Later on November 14, 2019, another five-judge bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, by a majority of 3:2, referred the issue of discrimination against women at various places of worship to a larger bench. The bench had then framed broad issues on freedoms across religions, saying they cannot be decided without any facts of the particular case.

Besides the Sabarimala case, the verdict also referred issues of entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs and of Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, to the holy fire place of an Agiary, to the larger bench.

On May 11, 2020, another bench held that its 5-judge bench had the power to refer the questions of law to a larger bench for adjudication while exercising its limited power under review jurisdiction in the Sabarimala temple entry case.

After that, the matters could not be taken up for almost five years because of the COVID pandemic, and later, they were not taken up by other chief justices. On Monday, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said a nine-judge bench will begin hearing the petitions on April 7 and will conclude them on April 22.

The CJI asked the parties to file their written submissions on or before March 14. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre said he supported the pleas for review of the Sabarimala verdict that allowed entry of women of all age groups to the hill-top shrine in Kerala.

The bench-appointed lawyer Krishna Kumar Singh is the nodal counsel for parties supporting the review of the Sabarimala verdict. It also appointed Shashwati Pari as the nodal counsel for those opposing the review of the verdict. “We also deem it appropriate that senior advocate K Parameshwar, along with Shivam Singh, are appointed as the amicus. Singh shall submit the stand taken by all parties before this court,” the CJI said.

“The nine-judge bench will begin hearing the Sabarimala review case on April 7, 2026, at 10:30 am. The review petitioners or the party supporting them shall be heard from April 7 to April 9. The ones opposing the review shall be heard on April 14 to April 16. The rejoinder submissions, if any, will be heard on April 21, 2026, followed by the final and concluding submissions by the learned amicus... Which is expected to be over by April 22,” the order said.

The bench asked the lawyers to adhere to the schedule. Earlier, the bench read out seven questions it had framed on the scope of religious freedom.

Asserting that it was open to addition and deletion of issues framed, the bench said it would consider: “What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?”

About the second issue, it said: “What is the interplay between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26?”

The third question is whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 are subject to other fundamental rights apart from public order, morality, and health. “What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality’ under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?” read the fourth question. The bench said it would also examine the “scope and extent of judicial review,” concerning a religious practice as referred under Article 25 of the Constitution.

“What is the meaning of the expression “sections of Hindus” occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?” read the sixth issue.

The top court said it would examine, as the seventh question, whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that “religious denomination or religious group” by filing a public interest litigation (PIL).