NEW DELHI (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — In a significant legal stance, the Central Government today backed the age-old restriction on the entry of women of menstruating age into Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple. Representing the Centre before a nine-judge Constitution Bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that religious practices and denominational autonomy are matters of faith that should remain beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny.
The Centre’s Argument: Faith vs. Fundamental Rights
The hearing, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is part of a broader review of the 2018 judgment that initially lifted the ban. The Solicitor General’s arguments focused on the separation of religious tradition from modern constitutional interpretations of “dignity.”
- Denominational Autonomy: The Centre argued that Article 26 of the Constitution grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs. Mehta contended that “not everything is related to dignity or bodily freedom,” drawing parallels to wearing head coverings in Gurudwaras or Mazars as accepted traditions.
- The Science of Ritual: Addressing arguments that the ban is unscientific or discriminatory, the Centre suggested that judicial review is not the appropriate tool for religious reform. Mehta stated, “If there is something unscientific, the remedy is with the legislature,” rather than the courts.
- Non-Interference: The Solicitor General cautioned that if the court begins testing every religious practice against the touchstone of “modernity” or “science,” it could destabilize the diverse cultural fabric of the country.
The Nine-Judge Bench: Key Participants
This bench was constituted to address the intersection of religious freedom (Article 25 & 26) and the right to equality (Article 14).
| Justice | Role |
| Justice Surya Kant | Chief Justice of India (Presiding) |
| Justice B.V. Nagarathna | Senior Member |
| Justice M.M. Sundresh | Member |
| Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah | Member |
| Justice Aravind Kumar | Member |
| Justice A.G. Masih | Member |
| Justice P.B. Varale | Member |
| Justice R. Mahadevan | Member |
| Justice Joymalya Bagchi | Member |
Understanding the Legal Conflict
The case revolves around a fundamental tension between two sets of constitutional rights.
- Individual Rights (Articles 14, 15, 21): The argument that a woman’s right to worship and her dignity cannot be curtailed based on biological factors like menstruation.
- Group Rights (Article 26): The argument that the followers of Lord Ayyappa constitute a distinct denomination with the right to preserve their unique traditions and the “Naishtika Brahmachari” (eternal celibate) nature of the deity.
Next Steps in the Hearing
The bench is expected to continue hearing arguments from various stakeholders, including the Sabarimala Temple Tantris and women’s rights organizations. The outcome of this case will set a massive precedent for other religious disputes, including entry into mosques and the Parsi “Tower of Silence” rituals.
Sources
- The Hindu: “Sabarimala: Faith is beyond judicial review, Centre tells SC” (April 7, 2026).
- Press Trust of India (PTI): “Centre backs Sabarimala entry curbs; says court can’t test religious faith” (April 7, 2026).
- Live Law: “Constitution Bench Hearing: Centre argues for denominational autonomy in Sabarimala Case” (April 7, 2026).
- Supreme Court Records: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (Review Petition).
Leave a Reply