The Supreme Court of India is hearing a series of petitions challenging the 2018 ruling that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, a decision which had struck down age-based restrictions on women’s entry to the shrine. A nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is examining the constitutional questions around religious freedom, equality, and the limits of judicial authority in matters of faith.

In its 2018 verdict, a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court invalidated Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which barred women of "menstruating age" from entering the temple on grounds of custom. The court ruled that this practice violated constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and dignity. The majority held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution and that the exclusion of women did not qualify as an “essential religious practice” (ERP).

The case hinges on the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which protect religious freedom and the autonomy of religious denominations, respectively. Article 25 ensures the right of all persons to profess and practice their religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, a status with broader protections that is not subject to all other fundamental rights.

A key principle underpinning the Court’s analysis is the ERP doctrine, which requires determining whether a religious practice is integral and indispensable to the faith. This approach seeks to balance the autonomy of religious groups against the constitutional mandate to uphold equality and individual rights. In previous rulings, the Court has narrowed the scope of protected religious practices, distinguishing core essential rituals from customs that may be subject to reform.

The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has argued that judicial review on questions of “constitutional morality” is subjective and that social reforms should arise from legislative and societal processes rather than judicial activism. The government also contends that religious sects have internal diversity and that Article 26’s reference to "any section thereof" extends denominational protections to sub-groups within a faith. Furthermore, it suggested that gender-based exclusions are rooted in religious doctrines rather than patriarchy and that certain constitutional provisions like Article 17, on untouchability, apply specifically to caste-based discrimination and not biological conditions such as menstruation.

The broader constitutional debate also addresses the extent to which the State can regulate religious practices. Article 25(2) empowers the government to regulate secular activities associated with religion and to enact social welfare reforms, historically aimed at combating caste-based exclusions within religious institutions. Legal scholars note that gender equality claims may derive stronger support from general rights against discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 rather than from the freedom of religion provisions.

The question of what constitutes a "religious denomination" under Article 26 remains crucial. The Court’s 1954 decision in Shirur Mutt established a three-part test: a group must have a common faith, organisational structure, and distinct designation. Applying this to the Sabarimala case, the Court previously found that Ayyappa devotees are not a separate denomination from the broader Hindu faith, given the temple’s open access to Hindus of various sects.

Critics point to differences between the original constitutional context of Article 26, influenced by Irish Christian denominations, and India’s more fluid Hindu religious structures. The inclusion of “or any section thereof” in Article 26 is interpreted to allow sub-groups within larger faiths to claim denominational rights, though the extent of this recognition is contested.

As the Supreme Court continues to deliberate, the case underscores the delicate balance between respecting religious diversity and safeguarding constitutional principles of equality and dignity in a pluralistic society.