NEW DELHI: After almost five years, following the filing of over 50 review pleas in the Sabarimala judgement case, the Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution bench is scheduled to start hearing them from April 7, Tuesday and is likely to conclude on April 22, 2026.
According to the SC causelist, the nine-judge Constitution bench, headed by the Chief Justice Surya Kant, is slated to hear the pleas from April 7, Tuesday onwards.
The other eight judges in the Bench composition would be: Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The apex court, in its last hearing, had on February 16 said that the review petitioners shall be heard from April 7 to 9, 2026.
"The nine-judge Bench shall begin hearing the review case on April 7, 2026, at 10.30 am. The review petitioners shall be heard from April 7 to 9, 2026. The parties opposing the review will be heard from April 16-17, 2026. Rejoinder submissions will be heard on April 21. The parties have to adhere to the schedule," said a three-judge bench of the apex court, led by CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, in its last hearing on February 16.
The review pleas have been filed and are pending in the top court for disposal, against the 2018 verdict holding that the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years to enter the Sabarimala Temple was 'unconstitutional'.
It is to be noted that more than 50 review petitions, which have been filed by devotees, religious groups, individuals and organisations, submitted that the Court should not interfere with the essential religious practices as Lord Ayyappa devotees form a separate religious denomination.
The batch of petitions filed in the top court related to the discrimination against women in religions and at religious places, including Kerala's Sabarimala Temple.
The Centre will support the review petitions.
"The Centre will be arguing in support of the review petitioners," the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had told the Bench.
The 2018 verdict was delivered by a 4:1 majority, lifting the ban on women aged 10–50 entering the Sabarimala temple, ruling the practice unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violating fundamental rights.
The top Court struck down Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Kerala rules, stating that the exclusion based on physiological factors (menstruation) could not constitute an essential religious practice. The only judge who dissented was Justice Indu Malhotra.
Following this, a batch of review petitions had been filed, and notably, the 2019 judgment of the apex court had not stayed the September 2018 verdict.
While review petitions led to the case being referred to a larger 7-judge bench in 2019, the 2018 judgment allowing women's entry remains in effect.
The 2019 verdict had framed questions for the seven-judge Bench to answer, including whether such practices considered essential should be given constitutional protection.
It had also clubbed similar petitions concerning the essentiality of religious practices, including the right of Muslim women to enter mosques, Parsi women who have married out of their faith to enter their religious place of worship, and certain others.
After Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s retirement in November 2019, his successor, Chief Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde (Now retired), had constituted a nine-judge Bench in January 2020 to hear the case.
After setting up the Bench, no fruitful hearing was conducted due to various factors, including COVID-19 and others.
