A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has reserved judgment after sixteen hearing days on the "Sabarimala Reference" — a set of questions the Court referred to itself in 2019 after review petitions against its 2018 verdict allowing entry of menstruating-age women into the Sabarimala temple. Instead of just re-deciding Sabarimala, the Bench examined how courts should determine which religious practices merit constitutional protection, also drawing in linked disputes over Muslim women's entry into mosques and Parsi women married outside the faith entering fire temples.
The core tension is between Article 25 (individual freedom of religion, subject to morality and other fundamental rights, and the State's power to throw open Hindu religious institutions) and Article 26 (a denomination's right to manage its own religious affairs). Courts have long used the "essential religious practices" test to resolve this, but critics say it forces judges into theological inquiry. The 2018 verdict's invocation of Article 17 (untouchability) to strike down the exclusion is among the contested doctrinal moves the Bench must now assess, alongside Articles 14, 15, 137, 145 and 141.
Remember: this is a reference on constitutional method, not a fresh Sabarimala-only ruling — its Article 141 effect will bind all courts and could reshape the essential-practices test across faiths.