Review of the Sabarimala Women’s Entry Case: New Nine-Judge Bench to Begin Hearing Arguments from April 7
The Supreme Court of India on Monday (February 16, 2026) scheduled a batch of review and writ petitions concerning a September 2018 judgment that allowed women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa temple for hearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench from April 7, 2026.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that the maintainability of the review petitions had already been decided by an earlier nine-judge Bench constituted in 2019 by then Chief Justice of India Sharad A. Bobde. The earlier proceedings were halted abruptly due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Sabarimala case has resurfaced for hearing after nearly five years, following the pandemic. Chief Justice Kant is the only serving judge from the original nine-judge Bench.
The court outlined a tentative schedule for the hearings in April 2026. The nine-judge Bench will hear the review petitioners challenging the 2018 judgment from April 7 to April 9. Arguments from those opposing the review petitions will be heard from April 14 to April 16. Rejoinder submissions are listed for April 21, followed by concluding arguments from the amicus curiae on April 22. The court emphasised that all parties must strictly adhere to the schedule.
In November 2019, a majority ruling by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi referred the Sabarimala review and writ petitions to a larger Bench.
More than 60 review and writ petitions had challenged the 2018 Sabarimala verdict. However, the 2019 judgment did not explicitly stay the September 2018 ruling.
The 2019 majority decision also tagged similar petitions pending before the Supreme Court on the issue of essential religious practices. These included matters relating to the entry of Muslim women into mosques, the rights of Parsi women who married outside their faith to enter their places of worship, and the practice of female genital mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The 2019 judgment framed key constitutional questions, including whether practices deemed “essential” deserve protection under the Constitution and the extent to which courts may intervene in matters of essential religious practice.
The nine-judge Bench was constituted to examine issues arising from the 1954 ruling in the Shirur Mutt case, delivered by a seven-judge Bench. In that landmark decision, the apex court held that “what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself.”
Amid the renewed legal proceedings, Kerala CPI(M) State Secretary M.V. Govindan said that the party’s position on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple need not necessarily align with that of the State government. His remarks come at a time when the Supreme Court is set to hear review petitions challenging the 2018 verdict permitting the entry of women of menstruating age into the shrine.
The issue has once again gained political traction in Kerala ahead of the upcoming State elections, triggering fresh debate across party lines. Notably, the State government’s formal submission before the Supreme Court has not yet been made public.
Meanwhile, Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan urged the government to revise its stand in the Supreme Court on the Sabarimala women’s entry issue, intensifying the political discourse surrounding the case.