The Supreme Court of India, on February 16, 2026, announced that it will begin hearing review petitions challenging its 2018 Sabarimala verdict from April 7, 2026. This time, the matter is expected to go before a nine-judge bench.

The 2018 ruling had opened the doors of the Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Temple in Kerala to women of all age groups, including those between 10 and 50 years. The decision sparked widespread backlash, with many devotees and religious bodies arguing that the court had stepped into matters of faith and long-standing tradition. Soon after, multiple petitions were filed, urging the court to revisit its judgment and draw clearer boundaries around judicial intervention in religious practices.

In 2019, a five-judge Constitution bench led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi examined 56 review petitions. While it acknowledged the complexity of the issue and referred key questions to a larger bench — particularly whether courts can interfere in essential aspects of religion — it stopped short of staying the original verdict.

Now, on April 7, the Supreme Court is set to hear around 60 review petitions. These come from a wide spectrum—temple authorities, priests, devotee groups, religious organisations, and individuals — reflecting that the challenge to the 2018 ruling is not one-sided. Among them is a petition by Gitarth Ganga, a 35-year-old spiritual research institute guided by Jainacharya Yugbhushansuriji, which calls for restoring religious autonomy, recognising religion and religious denominations as legal entities, and reinterpreting Articles 25 and 26 within the Indian context.

Jainacharya Yugbhushansuri, also known as Yugbhushan Surishwarji Maharaj, is a prominent Jain monk, scholar, and religious leader from the Svetambara tradition of Jainism. He, who is also fondly known as Sahebji, is one of the review petitioners in the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case. Here's all that you need to know about the issue -

Demands to the court through a review petition:

In an exclusive conversation with Sahebji, he made it clear that courts should not be deciding what is or isn’t “essential” to a religion. “That’s a theological question,” he said, speaking to the Maharashtra Knowledge Centre (MHKC). He pointed out that the ‘Essential Religious Practices’ doctrine — originally framed in the Shirur Mutt case of 1954 for a limited purpose — has, over time, been stretched and used to override deeply held religious beliefs.

In his view, religion should be guided by faith, tradition, and the community that practices it — not by judicial interpretation. If this trend continues, he warned, even practices central to a community’s identity could be struck down in the name of “constitutional morality.”

He also raised a structural concern. Indian-origin religions — broadly understood to include Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs — still lack clear juristic recognition. “They cannot enforce rights, hold property independently, or even challenge interference in their own name,” he noted, calling this a serious gap that leaves religious communities vulnerable. According to him, the upcoming nine-judge bench must address this by granting religious institutions a recognised legal personality.

Sahebji further argued for a fresh look at Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which deal with religious freedom and the management of religious affairs. As per the Jainacharya, these provisions were borrowed from Ireland’s Constitution — a framework shaped largely around Christianity and its institutional structure. He believes they were adopted in India without adequately consulting indigenous religious leaders or understanding the country’s unique religious fabric. “The Hindi text of the Constitution uses the term ‘dharmik sampradaya,’ which is rooted in our own traditions,” he said. “Its interpretation should come from that context—not from borrowed frameworks.”

 

Shifting balance towards religious autonomy

Reinterpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India is a key strategy for the petitioner challenging the 2018 verdict in the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case, as it holds potential to fundamentally shift the legal outcome. Petitioner aims to strengthen Article 26, which grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs. The matter is not only about the entry of women in the temples, but in this case, if the Sabarimala Temple is recognized as a distinct religious denomination, it could claim autonomy over its practices, including entry restrictions. This would limit judicial interference in what is seen as an internal religious matter.

At the same time, the petitioner seeks to narrow the scope of Article 25, which guarantees individual religious freedom. In the 2018 judgment, the Court prioritized women’s individual right to worship over traditional restrictions. A reinterpretation could potentially argue that individual rights must be balanced against the collective rights of a religious group.

Another major aspect is revisiting the “essential religious practices” doctrine, where courts decide what is fundamental to a religion. Petitioners argue that this allows judges to enter into the theological territory. If courts step back from this role, religious communities themselves would define their essential practices. Additionally, limiting the use of “constitutional morality” could prevent courts from striking down practices solely on equality grounds, thereby preserving traditional customs.

Overall, reinterpretation would tilt the focus from individual equality rights toward religious autonomy, potentially validating the temple’s traditional practices and weakening the basis of the 2018 ruling.

Notably, in the given case, there were also a few women devotees who raised objections over the 2018 verdict. Given this, the petition clearly states that the liberal spirit of interpretation that gave humans the right to a dignified life, the right to livelihood, and the right to sexual identity must now be applied to Articles 25 and 26 together. “Religious freedom deserves at least the same generosity of interpretation that has been extended to every other constitutional right,” it reads.

Consultation with religious leaders: Demand for greater respect, dignity, and independent recognition of religions within the legal system (excerpts)

The legal practitioners who are looking after the entire case on behalf of Sahebjji exclusively talked to MHKC and clarified that the issue is not about gender equality or specifically keeping women out of the religious system. According to the authorities, the issue is about all the religious practices that are generally questioned by the Constitution on the grounds of 'morality'. "We expect the nine-judge bench to also look into matters such as the entry of Muslim and Parsi women into places of worship, and female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community. Even in Jainism, we have a practice called Santhara, which is looked upon as a suicide when it comes to 'morality'. The bench needs to decide if the court must interfere in integral parts of a religion or not," the petitioners noted.

Question: How do you interpret the balance between Article 25 and Article 14, which talk about freedom of religion and the right to equality, respectively? How do you respond to critics who say this demand in the petition is discriminatory rather than devotional?

Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of religion to all persons equally, reflecting a broad and inclusive idea of equality. Our position is that this principle must extend to all religions uniformly, without selectively targeting or labelling specific religious practices as discriminatory. This petition is not a challenge to gender equality; we fully uphold that value. Rather, it raises a larger constitutional concern: the extent to which courts can intervene in religious structures and practices without meaningful consultation with the communities involved.

From our perspective, the 2018 judgment in the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case effectively results in unequal treatment of a particular religious tradition, thereby creating a form of discrimination against that religion itself. Critics should recognize that the issue is not about opposing equality, but about ensuring fairness in how constitutional principles are applied across religions. When judicial decisions disproportionately impact specific religious practices, it raises serious questions about balance, neutrality, and respect for religious autonomy. At its core, this is about addressing what is seen as an injustice toward religious communities and seeking a constitutional framework that protects both equality and the independence of religious traditions.

Question: Do you think this case could affect religious practices at other religious institutions?

We want to clarify that this issue is not limited to the Sabarimala Temple or to one specific question about women’s entry. It is a much broader constitutional issue. The concerns raised in this petition apply across religions and to multiple practices. It is not just about Sabarimala, but also relates to issues like the entry of Muslim and Parsi women into places of worship, practices such as female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and even Jain practices like Santhara, which is sometimes viewed as suicide under modern interpretations of morality.

This petition goes beyond temple or gender issues; it questions the larger relationship between the State and religion. The aim is to ensure that religious institutions are given independence and are not subject to unnecessary state control. Other aspects, though important, are secondary to this core concern.

Our position is clear viz the State should not interfere in the religious practices of any religion. Traditions and systems of Dharma are much older than the Constitution of India, and ideally should not be overridden or questioned by it. Historically, religious communities had their own systems to resolve disputes, which functioned effectively. These systems changed significantly during the British period, when a centralized legal structure was introduced.

If we look at countries like the UK, Ireland, and Italy, religions such as Christianity and Islam largely function with autonomy, without deep state interference. In contrast, in India, religions are often not treated as fully independent, and the State frequently intervenes in their internal matters. It is important to recognize that Indian religions have their own philosophical depth and ethical frameworks, and are capable of determining what is right for themselves.

Question: How do you want the state or the court to define morality and essential religious practice?

All fundamental rights in the Constitution of India are stated to be “subject to morality.” However, Bharatiya Dharmas are themselves rooted in strong ethical and moral principles. So when religious rights are made subject to “morality,” it can appear as if these traditions are being viewed as potentially immoral. This raises an important question: how can Dharma, which teaches moral conduct, be seen as going against morality? Another concern is that these religious rights are influenced by frameworks from countries like Ireland, rather than being shaped fully from an Indian civilisational perspective. India is a deeply religious society, and the Constitution should reflect and respect that, ensuring genuine freedom for Indian-origin religions.

The issue also goes beyond one case or one practice. After the review, petitions are heard in the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case, and different benches may examine various religious practices separately, to provide autonomy to religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism. The overall scope of the matter is broad and far-reaching. Further, on the question of “essential religious practices,” it is argued that courts should not decide what is right or wrong for a religion on their own. Just as courts consult medical experts in medical cases, they should also consult religious scholars and Dharma gurus in religious matters. The demand is for greater respect, dignity, and independent recognition of religions within the legal system.

Kerala government's U-turn over the verdict:

In a major development, the Kerala government, led by the Left Democratic Front (LDF), urged the Supreme Court to consult religious scholars before deciding the Sabarimala temple review. “Any judicial review into any religious practice followed for so many years connected with the belief and values accepted by the people must be after wide consultation with and after soliciting views of eminent religious scholars and reputed social reformers of that religion,” the Kerala government stated in its recent submissions to the bench.

Notably, the Kerala government had, earlier, supported the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 28th September, 2018. The decision allowed the entry of all women, irrespective of their age, into the temple.

“What is to be considered by the Court, in the matter of a judicial review about Article 25, should not be as to whether a particular religious practice or belief appeals to reason or sentiment, but should be as to whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion,” the state government added.

Conclusion:

So far, broadly around 50-60 review petitions have been filed in this case against the 2018 verdict. The entire list of the petitioners is not available, but the list includes Kantaru Rajeevaru (Chief priest of Sabarimala Temple); religious organisations like the Nair Service Society, National Ayyappa Devotees (Women’s) Association, All Kerala Brahmins Association, and Travancore Devaswom Board; royal stakeholders like the Pandalam Royal Family; and various Ayyappa devotee groups and individual worshippers including women devotees supporting the traditional restriction.

The clubbing of the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case with issues like the entry of Muslim women into mosques and practices such as FGM is not seen as a setback. The intention of the review petitions filed in the case seems to be broader, viz., to examine how far a secular court can go in deciding religious and theological matters, especially what constitutes an “essential religious practice.” This is the reason the matter has been referred to a larger 9-judge Bench. Petitioners argue that the 2018 judgment imposes a framework that does not suit Hindu traditions, effectively applying standards from other religions. They seem to be hopeful that the larger Bench will be mindful of these concerns and avoid using a one-size-fits-all approach.

Further, since all review and related petitions have been referred to a larger Bench, which will be heard on 7th April, 2026, there is a view that the 2018 judgment should not be enforced until a final decision is made. In this context, reliance is placed on the earlier 1991 Kerala High Court ruling, which upheld the traditional practice at the Sabarimala Temple. The 1991 judgement of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran vs The Secretary, Travancore, held that the practice of the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple of not permitting the entry of women of a procreative age group was constitutional and directly relatable to the nature of the Presiding Deity.

In conclusion, the core argument seems to revolve around finding a fair balance between the State and the religious institutions, in addition to the affirmed demands for independent recognition of Indian oriental Dharmas within the Indian legal system.

Background of the case:

The 2018 decision of the Constitution was delivered in response to the original writ petition filed before the Supreme Court in 2006, seeking directions to allow women aged between 10 and 50 to enter the Sabarimala temple and to declare Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 unconstitutional for allegedly violating Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution.

In September 2018, a Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, ruled in favour of the entry of women between 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple. Justice Indu Malhotra was the lone dissenting voice, who upheld the temple tradition prohibiting the entry of women of menstruating age into the temple.

The Supreme Court decision received huge backlash from Lord Ayyappa devotees, including women. Subsequently, review petitions were filed against the judgment. In November 2019, a five-judge Bench, by a 3:2 majority, observed that the judgment may impinge on the affairs of other religions too, and therefore, a detailed examination would be required. It referred the broader questions relating to the scope of religious freedom and essential religious practices to a nine-judge bench.