Sabarimala Reference Case | Religious Institutions Must Have Norms, There Can't Be Anarchy: Supreme Court

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court hearing the review petitions filed against its 2018 Sabarimala verdict today observed that there cannot be anarchy and the right to manage a religious institution cannot mean absence of structure and there have to be a norms devised for its functioning.

Notably, Justice Amanullah, part of the Constitution bench today said the right to manage cannot mean absence of structure and for everything, there has to be a modality.

This remark fell from the bench after Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for Peerzada Syed Altamash Nizami, direct ancestral descendent in Chisti Nizami lineage associated with dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Nizamuddin Aulia, submitted that the right to regulate entry in a religious institution is part of management.

"There cannot be anarchy. Take a dargah or a temple. There will be elements associated with the institution, the manner of worship, the sequence in which things are done. Somebody has to regulate that. It cannot be that everyone says I will do whatever I want, or that the gates remain open at all times without any control. So the question is, who is that body which manages. That is where protection comes in, because regulation is necessary. At the same time, it cannot transgress constitutional limitations. There cannot be discrimination on the broad constitutional parameters," Justice Amanullah said.

Court today also heard submissions from Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay told the bench, 'every action has a reaction, and every judgment has ramifications'. "What are the long-term consequences. Whether, over the next twenty five years, we move towards a more integrated and developed society, or whether the outcome leads to deeper fragmentation. These are considerations which, in my respectful submission, cannot be ignored," Upadhyay further told the CJI Surya Kant led bench.

Last month, after five years of the review petitions being taken up last, the Supreme Court of India today took up the batch of petitions challenging its September 2018 decision wherein a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority had ruled that the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. Notably, more than 50 review petitions have filed by devotees, religious groups, and organisations arguing that the Court interfered with essential religious practices as Lord Ayyappa devotees form a separate religious denomination.

The issue dates back to 2006, when Indian Young Lawyers Association had filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (1965 Rules) and sought a direction to permit female devotees between the ages of 10 to 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without any restrictions.

By a majority of 4:1, the Supreme Court allowed the Writ Petition on 28 September 2018 holding that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court also concluded that exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entry into the temple is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Further, Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was declared as violative of Article 25 (1) to the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

On 14 November 2019, a five judge Constitution Bench delivered a crucial order by a 3:2 Majority wherein it kept the Review petitions pending without overturning the 2018 judgment and referred larger constitutional questions to a 9-judge bench. The 9-judge bench led by former CJI SA Bobde held that no matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so, under the provisions of the Constitution and held that the review petitions were maintainable.

The Sabarimala review petitions is now one of the most important constitutional debates, balancing gender equality with religious freedom. Instead of immediately revising the 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court has chosen to examine wider questions affecting multiple faiths, making the case a landmark in constitutional and religious jurisprudence. Court has now expanded the issue beyond Sabarimala to include Muslim women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women’s religious rights and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication practices along with other similar issues.

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Vs INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B V Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Date: April 28, 2026