The Supreme Court intends to discuss and conclude the case by the end of April. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Saturday (April 4, 2026) informed a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant scheduled to hear the Sabarimala case from April 7.
Besides Chief Justice Kant, the bench would comprise Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale and Joymalya Bagchi.
The case consists of a series of writ petitions and revision petitions based on a 2018 verdict allowing women of menstrual age to enter the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala. After a gap of more than six years, the case would be taken up by a nine-judge Bench, which will deal with a substantive hearing on constitutional issues.
The earlier nine-judge bench was constituted in 2019 by the then Chief Justice of India, Sharad A. Bobde. The hearings before the Bench had to be abruptly interrupted due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chief Justice Kant is the only remaining judge from the previous nine-judge Bench.
The Supreme Court intends to discuss and conclude the case by the end of April. A nine-judge bench granted hearing to the petitioners from April 7 to April 9. Those who oppose them will be heard from April 14 to April 16. The rejoinder will be heard on April 21, followed by closing submissions from amicus curiae on April 22. The parties must adhere to the timeline, the court emphasized.
In November 2019, a majority judgment of a five-member Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi initially referred the review of Sabarimala and listed the petitions to a seven-member panel.
But the 2019 majority judgment did not limit the reference to the Sabarimala case. He took a broader view of questions of law that touched on church matters, including whether religious practices deemed essential should receive constitutional protection and the extent of judicial intervention in those matters.
The Gogoi bench joined the review of the Sabarimala case with other pending petitions involving other faiths, but raised similar legal questions. These included the right of Muslim women to enter mosques; the right of Parsi women who married out of their faith to enter their religious place of worship and the issue of female genital mutilation practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Chief Justice Bobde (as he then was) constituted a nine-judge bench, instead of a seven-judge, as it was found necessary to examine the 1954 judgment of the seven-judge in the Shirur Mutt case. Any overturning of the Shirur Mutt case, which for the first time took on the issue of “fundamental religious practice”, would require a larger bench.
Published – 04 Apr 2026 23:24 IST
