Supreme Court notifies nine-judge Bench for Sabarimala verdict review

This case brings into sharp focus the intricate relationship between several fundamental rights and the judiciary's role in interpreting them. The core constitutional conflict is between the Right to Equality (Article 14) and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 15) versus the Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25) and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs (Article 26). Article 25 grants individuals the right to practice religion, but it is subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. Article 26, however, grants religious denominations autonomy in religious matters, subject only to public order, morality, and health. The nine-judge bench is specifically tasked with examining the precedent set by the seven-judge bench in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), which established the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine. This doctrine allows courts to determine which religious practices are 'essential' and thus protected, a power that critics argue leads to judicial overreach into theological matters. UPSC aspirants should analyze how the Court balances denominational autonomy under Article 26 with individual rights to equality and non-discrimination, and whether the ERP test is a viable tool for this.

From a social perspective, the Sabarimala case is a significant battleground for gender justice against deeply entrenched patriarchal traditions. The 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala was hailed as a landmark victory for women's rights, as it struck down the practice of excluding women of menstruating age, viewing it as a form of gender discrimination. The majority opinion held that physiological and biological factors cannot be a basis for denying constitutional freedoms. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his concurring opinion, argued that the exclusion was a form of 'untouchability' based on notions of purity and pollution, violating Article 17. The review of this verdict forces a re-evaluation of constitutional morality versus social or religious morality. It questions whether customs that subordinate women can be granted constitutional protection in the name of religion. This case is emblematic of the broader societal churn in India, where modern constitutional values are challenging traditional norms and hierarchies. The outcome will have profound implications for other gender-related religious reforms, such as the entry of women into mosques and the rights of Parsi women.

The formation of a nine-judge bench highlights a critical aspect of judicial governance and procedure. A Constitution Bench, typically comprising five or more judges, is convened to decide on substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, as mandated by Article 145(3). A nine-judge bench is required in this instance because a key precedent, the Shirur Mutt case, was decided by a seven-judge bench, and a larger bench is necessary to reconsider or overturn its ruling. This demonstrates the principle of stare decisis (let the decision stand) and the hierarchical nature of judicial precedents within the Supreme Court of India. The Chief Justice of India holds the administrative power as the 'Master of the Roster' to constitute benches and allocate cases. This case also showcases the judiciary's role in prompting social reform, as contemplated under Article 25(2)(b), which allows the state to make laws for social welfare and reform, including throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus. The Court's final decision will be a definitive statement on the limits of judicial review in ecclesiastical matters and will guide future legislative and executive action on similar issues.