The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, 14 May reserved its verdict in the long-pending Sabarimala reference matter, concluding extensive hearings on a batch of petitions that raise foundational constitutional questions about religious freedom, denominational rights, and the limits of judicial review over matters of faith.

A nine-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, heard submissions from the Centre, religious bodies, review petitioners, intervenors, and amici curiae before reserving judgment. All parties have been granted liberty to file comprehensive written submissions by 29 May.

Origins of the Reference

The matter traces its roots to the Supreme Court's landmark September 2018 verdict, which permitted women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa Temple in Kerala, striking down a centuries-old practice that barred women of menstruating age. The ruling triggered a wave of review petitions.

In 2019, rather than directly reconsidering the 2018 judgment, the court referred seven broad constitutional questions to a larger bench. These questions centre on the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 — which guarantee religious freedom — and Article 14, which ensures equality before the law.

Scope Expanded Beyond Sabarimala

The nine-judge bench did not confine itself to the Sabarimala dispute alone. It also examined allied constitutional questions concerning the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, the rights of Parsi women to access fire temples following interfaith marriages, excommunication practices, and the issue of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community. The breadth of the reference signals that the eventual verdict could reshape the constitutional framework governing state intervention in religious affairs across communities.

What the Centre and Intervenors Argued

The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, repeatedly urged the court to adopt a restrained approach in matters of religion and faith, arguing that courts should ordinarily defer to legislatures and religious communities on questions of reform. Mehta contended that judicial review over faith-based matters must remain limited in scope.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium argued that the intensity of judicial scrutiny under Articles 25 and 26 cannot be equated with standard equality review under Article 14. 'The scope and intensity of judicial review under Articles 25 and 26 is not identical to the scope of review ordinarily exercised under Article 14,' he submitted, contending that rationality standards applicable to faith-based matters differ from arbitrariness review under equality jurisprudence.

Cautions from the Bar and the Bench

Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan cautioned against excessive reliance on the 'essential religious practices' doctrine, warning that courts risk becoming arbiters of theology. 'Your Lordships are not the high pope or priest to wander into this particular area,' Dhavan submitted, arguing that applying an essentiality threshold could effectively hollow out protections guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26.

Amicus curiae Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar supported submissions opposing rationality review of religious practices, while clarifying that courts retain authority to intervene where bodily integrity, dignity, or liberty are at stake.

From the bench itself, Justice Nagarathna had observed during an earlier hearing that indiscriminate challenges to religious practices before constitutional courts could disrupt the 'civilisational fabric' of India. 'What is unique about India? We are a civilisation despite having so much plurality and diversity. One of the constants in our society is the relationship between human beings and religion. We cannot break that constant,' she had remarked. Justice Sundresh had similarly cautioned that unchecked judicial scrutiny of religious disputes could destabilise religions themselves, remarking: 'Everybody will question everything. Every religion will break.'

What Comes Next

With the verdict now reserved, parties have until 29 May to file written submissions. The court had earlier conclusively settled the maintainability of the reference and identified seven substantial questions of law for adjudication. The eventual ruling is expected to set binding precedent on the constitutional limits of judicial review in matters of religion — a question with far-reaching implications for temple entry, community rights, and gender equality jurisprudence across India.