You are currently viewing Sabarimala Constitution Bench Hearing – April 9, 2026: Detailed Analysis of Arguments on Religious Freedom and Denominational Rights

Sabarimala Constitution Bench Hearing – April 9, 2026: Detailed Analysis of Arguments on Religious Freedom and Denominational Rights

Introduction

The proceedings before the nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India on April 9, 2026, continued the extensive hearing in the Sabarimala Review Petition. The case raises fundamental constitutional questions regarding the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple and the interpretation of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

At the core of the debate lies the delicate balance between individual rights and denominational autonomy, alongside broader questions concerning judicial review, essential religious practices, and the meaning of morality within the constitutional framework. The submissions made on this day by the Union of India and senior advocates for the review petitioners explored these issues in depth.

Background of the Hearing

Continuation of the Sabarimala Review Proceedings

The nine-Judge Constitution Bench continued hearing the matter concerning:

  • Entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple
  • Interpretation of Articles 25 and 26

Central Constitutional Issue

The key issue before the Court is:

  • Balancing individual rights under Article 25(1)
  • With denominational autonomy under Article 26
  • Including whether Sabarimala qualifies as a religious denomination

Counsel Appearing

Submissions were advanced by:

  • K.M. Nataraj
  • Vikramjit Banerjee (for the Union of India)
  • Senior Advocates including C.S. Vaidyanathan (for review petitioners)

Core Constitutional Framework: Articles 25 and 26

Interconnected Nature of Rights

It was submitted that the controversy stems from a misunderstanding of the relationship between Articles 25 and 26.

Key Arguments

  • These provisions are not competing
  • They are structurally interconnected
  • They must be harmoniously construed

Scope of Each Provision

Article 25(1)

  • Protects individual freedom of conscience
  • Guarantees right to profess, practice, and propagate religion

Article 26

  • Protects collective rights of religious denominations

Article 25(2)

  • Enables State intervention in:
    • Secular aspects of religion
    • Social reform

Three-Tier Constitutional Structure

The Additional Solicitor General described a three-tier mechanism:

First Tier

  • Article 25(1): Individual freedom

Second Tier

  • Article 26: Denominational autonomy

Third Tier

  • Article 25(2): State regulation and reform

This structure ensures a balance between:

  • Individual rights
  • Collective rights
  • State authority

Judicial Interpretation and Bench Observations

Is Article 26 a Subset of Article 25?

The Court raised whether Article 26(b) is a subset of Article 25(1).

Response

  • Article 26 is not a subset
  • It is an offshoot of collective exercise of individual rights

Bench Observation

  • Article 25 is broader
  • Article 26 is narrower and focused on management

Both were described as:

  • Two facets of the same constitutional guarantee

Scope of Religious Freedom

Internal and External Dimensions

It was argued that Article 25(1) protects:

  • Internal belief
  • External manifestation

Includes

  • Rituals
  • Customs
  • Modes of worship

Judicial Restraint

Courts must:

  • Avoid imposing external standards
  • Exercise restraint in determining essential practices

Relationship Between Individual and Collective Rights

“Atomic Molecules” Analogy

The Additional Solicitor General described:

  • Individuals as “atomic molecules”
  • Which form a Sampradaya

Key Argument

  • Once formed, collective rights gain importance
  • Individual dissent cannot dismantle denominational practices

Recognition in Constitution

  • Collective rights exist in:
    • Religious minorities
    • Linguistic groups

Conflict Resolution Framework

Types of Conflicts

  • Between believers and denominations
  • Between believers and non-believers
  • Between State and religion

Suggested Approach

  • Use harmonious construction
  • Prefer evidentiary adjudication over abstract constitutional rulings

Autonomy Under Article 26(b)

Distinct Constitutional Position

It was emphasized that:

  • Article 26(b) is not expressly subject to other provisions
  • Unlike Article 25(1)

Implication

  • Denominational autonomy must carry substantial weight

Scope of Autonomy

  • Determination of essential religious practices
  • Management of religious affairs

Limits on Judicial and Legislative Interference

Core Submission

  • Courts and legislature cannot determine essential practices

Exception

  • Only allowed on grounds of:
    • Public order
    • Morality
    • Health

Concept of Sampradaya and Denomination

Indian Context of “Denomination”

It was argued that:

  • “Denomination” should be understood as Dharma Sampradaya

Characteristics

  • Tradition
  • Customs
  • Teachings
  • Lineage

No Need for Formal Structure

  • Even small groups can qualify

“Any Section Thereof”

  • Protects smaller segments within broader traditions

Critique of the Triple Test

Judicial Tests Challenged

The “triple test” from:

  • Shirur Mutt case
  • S.P. Mittal case

Key Criticism

  • Based on Abrahamic frameworks
  • Inapplicable to Indian plural traditions

Hinduism Characterised As

  • Non-monolithic
  • Collection of multiple Sampradayas

Illustrative Examples of Sampradayas

Examples cited:

  • Varkari Sampradaya
  • Ramanandi Sampradaya

Key Point

  • Lack centralized structure
  • Still possess distinct identities

Judicial Inconsistency Highlighted

  • Lingayats
  • Jains
  • Ramakrishna Mission

Fundamental Nature of Denominational Rights

Reliance on Ratilal Case

It was argued that:

  • Denominational rights are fundamental
  • Cannot be taken away by the State

Authority to Determine Practices

  • Lies with the religious community
  • Not with courts

Scope of Article 25(2)(b)

Nature of the Provision

  • Enabling provision
  • Not a fundamental right

Limitations

  • Cannot override Article 26

Purpose

  • Address caste-based exclusion
  • Linked to Article 17

Key Argument

  • Not intended for gender-based reform

Constitutional Scheme of Equality vs Religion

Anti-Discrimination Provisions

  • Articles 14, 15, 16

Religious Freedom Provisions

  • Articles 25 to 28

Key Distinction

  • Article 25 lacks explicit anti-discrimination language

Additional Points

  • Article 15(2) does not mention temples
  • Article 16(5) allows religious qualifications

Religious Institutions and Secularism

Reliance on Seshammal Case

It was argued that:

  • Religious institutions are not purely secular
  • Religious functions require religious criteria

Meaning of Morality

Public Morality vs Constitutional Morality

Submission

  • “Morality” in Articles 25 and 26 means:
    • Public morality

Not

  • Constitutional morality

Basis

  • Constituent Assembly Debates

Illustrations on Limits of Individual Rights

Examples Provided

Temple Practices

  • Cannot demand non-vegetarian food in vegetarian temples
  • Cannot object to liquor as prasadam

Key Argument

  • Individual rights cannot alter denominational practices

Gender-Based Religious Practices

Examples Cited

  • Temples where men are not permitted
  • Temples requiring men to wash women’s feet
  • Temples where men dress as women

Conclusion

  • Differentiation ≠ discrimination

Critique of 2018 Judgment

Main Argument

  • Based on incorrect assumption of gender superiority

Correct Basis

  • Rooted in:
    • Naishtika Brahmachari nature of the deity

Arguments by Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan

Guruvayur Temple Example

  • Men must remove shirts before entry

Bench Observation (Justice B.V. Nagarathna)

  • Not comparable to Sabarimala restriction

Response

  • Must consider:
    • Purpose
    • Manifestation of the deity

Impact of Broad Interpretation of Article 25(2)(b)

Warning

  • Would render Article 26 redundant

Key Argument

  • Would destroy denominational autonomy

Judicial Restraint in Religious Matters

Examples from Christian Disputes

  • Orthodox vs Jacobite conflicts

Submission

  • Courts should avoid theological adjudication

Conclusion of Submissions

The submissions emphasized that:

  • Religious freedom is intrinsic to life and liberty
  • Indian secularism means non-interference
  • Denominational autonomy must be preserved
  • Articles 25 and 26 must be harmoniously interpreted
  • Public morality is the governing standard
  • Courts must adopt restraint in religious matters

Final Thought

The April 9, 2026 hearing further deepens the constitutional dialogue on the intersection of faith, autonomy, and rights. By advocating a harmonized interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 and emphasizing the primacy of denominational autonomy, the submissions challenge the judiciary to reconsider the limits of its role in religious matters.

As the Constitution Bench continues its deliberations, the outcome of this case is poised to redefine the contours of religious freedom and secularism in India for generations to come.

Tags: ,