Authored By: SAKSHI TIWARI
Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith
Case Citation & Basic Information
Case Name: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association
Citation: Review Petition (Civil) No. 3358 of 2018.
Court: Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Constitution Bench)
Bench Strength: Nine Judges
Coram: Chief Justice Surya Kant; Justice B.V Nagarathna; Justice M.M Sundresh; Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah; Justice Aravind Kumar; Justice Augustine George Masih; Justice Prasanna B. Varale; Justice R. Mahadevan; Justice Joymala Bagchi.
Nature of the Case: Constitutional clash between individual rights (gender equality and bodily autonomy) and collective religious autonomy (the right of denominations to manage their internal affairs).
Relevant Constitutional Provisions: Article 137, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 32, 145(3) of the Constitution of India.
Introduction
The Sabarimala Review Matters are among the most important constitutional hearings currently before the Supreme Court of India. They arise from the 2018 judgment that struck down the ban on entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple, and the later reference that reopened broader questions about religious freedom, denominational autonomy, and constitutional morality. The case matters because it does not only concern one temple practice; it may shape the future of Article 25, Article 26, and the Court’s approach to essential religious practices.
III. Facts of the Case
The dispute began when the practice at the Sabarimala temple barred women of menstruating age from entering the shrine. In 2018, a Constitution Bench held by a 4:1 majority that this exclusion was unconstitutional and violated the fundamental rights of women devotees.
The majority reasoned that the temple practice did not qualify as an essential religious practice did not qualify as an essential religious practice protected under the Constitution. After that judgment, review petitions were filed by devotees and religious groups, and the matter was later referred to a larger bench because the Court felt that broader constitutional questions needed resolution.
The 2026 hearings were conducted before a nine-judge bench over several days in April and May 2026, with the Court ultimately reserving judgment. The present proceedings do not reopen only the Sabarimala temple issue; they also ask the Court to clarify the constitutional framework governing religious autonomy, faith-based practice, and equality claims.
Legal Issues
The review proceedings raise several connected constitutional questions. The main issues include whether courts can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition, whether a non member of a denomination can challenge its religious practice through a PIL, and how far judicial review can extend to religious customs.
The Court is also examining the meaning of “morality” in Articles 25 and 26, the scope of Article 25’s protection of religious freedom, and whether denominational rights under Article 26 are subject to the wider guarantees of Part III, Another important issue is the meaning of the phrase “sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b).
Arguments Presented
Arguments of the Petitioners
The petitioners supporting review argued that Articles 25 and 26 protect not only individuals but also religious communities and denominations. They submitted that the Constitution does not allow courts to flatten religious freedom into a purely individual right, because faith often survives through collective practice, tradition, and internal discipline. They also argued that the essential religious practices doctrine is unstable and should not become the sole test for deciding constitutional protection.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued that religious freedom cannot be reduced to a single assimilated model under Part III and that Article 26 has an independent role in protecting group identity. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi similarly submitted that Article 25 and 26 must be understood as working together but not as identical rights. The petitioners also contended that constitutional morality should not become a free-standing weapon to strike down religious practices unless a specific constitutional violation is clearly shown.
Arguments of the Respondent
The respondents and those opposing review argued that the 2018 judgment correctly protected the rights of women devotees and upheld equality in worship. They maintained that religious customs cannot be used to justify exclusion based on gender, dignity, or bodily status. The respondents also defended judicial review in religious matters, arguing that constitutional courts cannot avoid deciding cases where a practice affects fundamental rights.
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, as amicus curiae, argued that the ERP doctrine can be elitist and may exclude marginal or less institutionalized religious traditions from protection. He also submitted that the right to temple entry flows from Article 25(1), and the courts must balance denominational claims against the rights of believers. Advocate Shivam Singh argued that constitutional morality may help interpretation but cannot operate as an independent ground of validation.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The hearing records show that the Bench focusing on the relationship between Article 25 and 26 and the extent to which the Constitution protects collective religious identity. The judges explored whether denominational rights are independent or whether they must always yield to individual rights claims under Part III. A major part of the discussion concerned whether the essential religious practices doctrine is a reliable constitutional tool or whether it allows courts to enter questions that are better left to the religious community.
The Court also examined the meaning of constitutional morality in religious cases. Some arguments presented before the Bench suggested that morality should be used as a interpretive guide rather than as a separate source of invalidity. The proceedings reflect a serious attempt to balance two constitutional commitments: equality and non-discrimination on one side, and religious autonomy on the other. The Bench did not yet deliver final findings, but the tenor of the hearings indicates that the Court sees this as a foundational case for religious freedom jurisprudence.
VII. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court has not yet delivered its final judgment in the Sabarimala review matters. After hearing detailed arguments in 2026, the nine-judge Bench reserved its decision. Until the Court pronounces its ruling, the 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala continues to hold the field.
The central point of the case is that the Court is being asked to decide how far constitutional protection extends to religious practices when they come into conflict with equality, dignity, and individual freedom. One side argues that the Sabarimala exclusion violates the fundamental rights of women devotees and cannot be protected merely because it is a religious custom. The other side argues that the Constitution also protects the autonomy of religious denominations and that courts should be cautious before interfering in matters of faith.
Because the matter is still pending, there is no final ratio decidendi from the 2026 review proceedings yet. However, the broader principle at stake is whether a religious practice can survive constitutional scrutiny if it excludes a section of believers from worship on grounds that are not consistent with equality and fundamental rights. The eventual ratio will likely turn on how the Court balances Article 25 and Article 26 with the guarantees of equality, dignity, and non- discrimination.
VIII. Critical Analysis
Significance of the Decision
The Sabarimala review is important because it may decide how Indian constitutional law treats religion in future cases. If the Court reshapes the ERP doctrine of clarifies Article 25 and Article 26, the effect will extend far beyond one temple dispute. The outcome may also influence cases involving entry into mosques, fire temples, and other religious institutions tagged with this reference.
Implications and Impact
The case has the potential to define whether constitutional courts may continue to examine religious practices through a rights-based lens or whether they should defer more heavily to religious autonomy. It also affects gender equality in public worship and the broader idea of whether exclusionary religious customs can survive constitutional scrutiny. A clear ruling could
settle recurring disputes over the scope of PILs in the matter of faith and the meaning of denominational rights.
Critical Evaluation
The strength of the current proceedings lies in the Court’s willingness to confront difficult constitutional questions directly rather than treating them as isolated temple-entry issues. The hearing also shows a serious attempt to balance reform, faith, and equality. At the same time, the long debate around ERP suggests that the doctrine itself may no longer provide a fully satisfactory answer in society with varied and evolving religious traditions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Sabarimala review matters occupy a crucial place in Indian constitutional law because they go beyond the facts of one temple and raise deeper questions about the nature of religious freedom in democratic society. The case forces the Court to confront the tension between individual equality and collective religious autonomy, and to decide how far constitutional courts should go in examining religious practices that are claimed to be part of faith. Its importance lies not only in the immediate issue of access to worship, but also in the broader constitutional principles it may reaffirm ore reshape.
The proceedings show that the debate is not simply about whether a particular practice should continue, but about how the Constitution understands religion, dignity, tradition, and reform. A
final decision in this matter will likely influence future cases involving temple entry, denominational rights, and the scope of judicial review in religious disputes. It may also provide long-awaited clarity on the essential religious practices doctrine, which has long been criticized for being uncertain and difficulty to apply consistently.
What makes this case especially significant is that it reflects the continuing law to balance respect for faith with the values of equality and non-discrimination. Whatever the final outcome, the judgment will have lasting importance because it will shape the future relationship between religion and constitutional rights of India. For that reason, the Sabarimala review matters are not only a legal controversy, but also a defining test of constitutional interpretation in a plural and evolving society.
Reference(S):
Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers’ Ass’n, Rev. Pet. (C) No. 3358/2018 (India). 2. Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 (India).
Sabarimala review proceedings, SUPREME COURT OBSERVOR, scobserver.in (last visited on June 4, 2026).
News reports confirming reservation of judgment in 2026.
