New Delhi, February 16 The Supreme Court on Monday announced that a nine-judge bench will begin hearing petitions related to discrimination against women in religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple, and on the scope of religious freedom practiced by various faiths, starting on April 7.
In September 2018, a five-judge constitutional bench, by a 4:1 majority, overturned the ban that prohibited women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Ayyappa shrine at Sabarimala in Kerala, and ruled that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was unconstitutional.
Later, on November 14, 2019, another five-judge bench, headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, by a 3:2 majority, referred the issue of discrimination against women in places of worship to a larger bench.
The bench framed broad questions regarding religious freedoms, stating that they could not be decided without considering the specific facts of each case.
Besides the Sabarimala case, the verdict also referred issues related to the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, and of Parsi women into Agiaries, to the larger bench.
In May 2020, another bench held that its five-judge bench had the power to refer questions of law to a larger bench for adjudication, while exercising its limited power under review jurisdiction in the Sabarimala temple entry case.
Following this, the matters remained pending for almost five years due to the COVID pandemic, and were subsequently not taken up by other chief justices.
On Monday, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi announced that the nine-judge bench will begin hearing the petitions on April 7 and conclude them on April 22.
The Chief Justice asked the parties to file their written submissions by March 14. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre said he supported the pleas for a review of the Sabarimala verdict, which 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.
"We also deem it appropriate that senior advocate K Parameshwar, along with Shivam Singh, are appointed as the amici. Singh shall submit the stand taken by all parties before this court," the Chief Justice 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 inter-play 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).
It said the larger bench will have to evolve a judicial policy to do "substantial and complete justice" in matters of freedom of religion, such as restrictions on the entry of Muslim and Parsi women into their places of worship.