Supreme Court During Sabarimala Hearing: No Need To Attack Power Of Judicial Review

The Supreme Court today cautioned against elaborate arguments being made before it against the powers of judicial review.

"If the State, in the name of social welfare, prohibits a religious practice, who will examine... There is no need to attack on the power of judicial review so much. We understand that limitations are there but to say that there is no power at all, it may also be a very difficult proposition..", CJI Surya Kant heading the 9-judge bench hearing the Sabarimala review petitions said today.

This was after Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak contended that codification of a pre-existing religious practice by the State would not make that practice amenable to judicial review.

Deepak further told court, "While I am not arguing on the merits of the Sabarimala case, I am just giving this by way of an illustration-that if the temple because of the deity's character naistik bramachari, there are certain proscription or prohibition on restriction on certain class of people, which have nothing to do with jati(caste) in any manner whatsoever, because that class is across caste as far as restriction is concerned, then it doesn't run a foul of this prohibition".

The senior lawyer further cited examples of temples across the board where prohibition applies to people across gender, for instance, the Bhagwati temple in Kerala where access to men is restricted for specific reasons. "I gave an example of the Sathapadi temple in Odisha, where the priests are all Dalit. And there is a reason for it, apparently the original Brahmin priest ended up seeking the deity in its unclothed form and therefore, to atone for it, he decided to handover the temple to four Dalit priests and till date, for the last 400 years, that practice continues," he added.

Supreme Court's 9-judge bench today continued hearing submissions on behalf of the petitioners seeking review of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.

After five years of the review petitions being taken up last, the Supreme Court of India in March 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 21, 2026