Sabarimala Review Petitions: Constitutional Bench to Re-examine Women's Entry Verdict
Contents4
Indian Express - Explained · 3 Mar 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance
The Supreme Court will hear review petitions on its 2018 Sabarimala verdict allowing women's entry, with a nine-judge Constitution Bench scheduled for April 7, highlighting tensions between religious customs and constitutional rights.
Key points
Constitution Bench: A nine-judge bench will review the 2018 verdict, indicating the case's constitutional significance regarding religious rights versus gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 25.
2018 Verdict: A five-judge bench struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, deeming it unconstitutional for barring women aged 10-50, citing violations of fundamental rights.
Political Impact: The CPI(M)-led Kerala government's support for women's entry contributed to its electoral losses in 2019, showcasing the intersection of judicial decisions and political outcomes.
Historical Context: The Kerala High Court upheld the ban in 1991, ruling it aligned with tradition, while the Supreme Court's 2018 decision marked a shift toward constitutional rights over customs.
State Government's Shifting Stance: The LDF supported women's entry in 2007 and 2016, while the UDF opposed it, reflecting partisan divides on religious customs versus gender equality.
[GS2-Governance] The case exemplifies judicial intervention in religious practices to uphold constitutional rights, a recurring theme in Indian polity.
[GS1-Society] The Sabarimala issue highlights societal resistance to gender equality in religious spaces, a critical area for social reform.
Legal Questions: The review will address whether religious customs can override fundamental rights, a pivotal issue for India's secular framework.
Way Forward: The judiciary should balance religious autonomy with gender equality, while the state must ensure enforcement of progressive rulings through public awareness and stakeholder engagement.
Key terms
- Article 25
- Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. UPSC relevance lies in its frequent judicial interpretation in cases like Sabarimala.
- Travancore Devaswom Board
- The statutory body managing Sabarimala temple's administration. Its role in enforcing customs versus constitutional rights makes it a key entity in governance and polity questions.
- Fundamental Rights
- Enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, these rights are justiciable and include equality (Articles 14-18) and freedom of religion (Articles 25-28). Sabarimala tests their applicability against religious customs.
- Constitution Bench
- A bench of the Supreme Court comprising five or more judges, convened to decide cases involving substantial questions of constitutional law. For UPSC, it signifies judicial scrutiny of fundamental rights versus religious practices.
Practice question
Critically analyze the constitutional and societal implications of the Sabarimala temple entry issue, with reference to the balance between religious customs and gender equality in India. (250 words, 15 marks)
GS2 15 marks 250 words Mains
Key terms to include: Article 25 Fundamental Rights Constitution Bench Travancore Devaswom Board Gender Equality Judicial Intervention Public Worship Rules Secular Framework
Answer framework
Introduction
Briefly introduce the Sabarimala temple entry issue, highlighting the 2018 Supreme Court verdict and the ongoing review petitions. Mention the constitutional conflict between religious customs (Article 25) and gender equality (Articles 14, 15).
Constitutional Dimensions
Conflict between Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Articles 14-15 (right to equality).
Role of the judiciary in interpreting constitutional provisions to uphold fundamental rights over religious customs.
Significance of the nine-judge Constitution Bench in setting a precedent for similar cases.
Societal Implications
Resistance from traditionalists versus demands for gender equality in religious spaces.
Impact on women's rights movements and societal attitudes towards gender equality.
Political ramifications, as seen in the electoral outcomes in Kerala post-2018 verdict.
Governance Challenges
Role of the Travancore Devaswom Board in enforcing temple customs versus constitutional mandates.
State government's shifting stances (LDF vs. UDF) reflecting partisan divides on the issue.
Challenges in implementing judicial rulings due to deep-rooted societal norms.
Conclusion
Suggest a balanced approach where the judiciary upholds constitutional rights while ensuring sensitivity to religious sentiments. Emphasize the need for public awareness and stakeholder engagement to bridge the gap between legal rulings and societal acceptance.
Fact check
All facts verified