Sabarimala Review: Kerala & Centre Back 2018 SC Judgment Review — CLAT 2027 Analysis

CURRENT AFFAIRS | APRIL 7, 2026

CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

In a significant development, both the Kerala government and the Central government have backed the review of the landmark 2018 Supreme Court judgment that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple. The hearing is scheduled in the Supreme Court, bringing back one of India’s most contentious constitutional debates — the tension between the right to equality and the freedom to manage religious affairs.

The 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala was delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench in a 4:1 majority, with Justice Indu Malhotra as the lone dissenter. The majority struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965, which banned women aged 10-50 from entering the temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.

For CLAT 2027 aspirants, the Sabarimala case is one of the most important judgments in the syllabus — it tests understanding of fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 25, 26), the Essential Religious Practices doctrine, constitutional morality, and the balance between equality and religious freedom.

The 2018 Sabarimala Judgment: What the Court Held

The 5-judge Constitution Bench, comprising CJI Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra, delivered a 4:1 verdict on 28 September 2018:

Majority Opinion (CJI Misra, Nariman, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud):

• The ban on women of menstruating age violated Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution
• Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26
• The practice of excluding women is not an “essential religious practice” deserving constitutional protection
• Constitutional morality must prevail over popular morality
• Biological and physiological characteristics cannot be the basis of exclusion from a public place of worship

Dissent (Justice Indu Malhotra):

• Courts should not interfere with essential religious practices of a faith
• Devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a religious denomination under Article 26
• The limited restriction (only women 10-50) was not discriminatory but based on the nature of the deity as a Naishtika Brahmachari
• Notions of rationality cannot be applied to matters of faith

The Essential Religious Practices Doctrine

The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine was first laid down by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case (1954) — Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. The Court held that only practices that are “essential” and “integral” to a religion are protected under Articles 25 and 26. The determination of what constitutes an essential practice is made by the court, not by the religious community itself.

In the Sabarimala context, the majority held that the exclusion of women was not an essential practice of Hinduism or even of the Ayyappa sect. This finding was central to striking down the ban.

Constitutional Morality vs. Popular Morality

One of the most significant contributions of the Sabarimala judgment was the emphasis on constitutional morality — the idea that the Constitution’s values of equality, liberty, dignity, and fraternity must prevail over popular sentiment or traditional practices, however deeply held. Justice Chandrachud’s opinion particularly emphasized that constitutional morality requires a pluralistic approach to society where individual rights are not trampled by majoritarian or traditional viewpoints.

Article 17 and the Untouchability Argument

An important dimension of the Sabarimala debate is the invocation of Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability). The argument is that excluding women based on menstruation — a biological characteristic — constitutes a form of “untouchability” based on a physiological attribute. While Article 17 was historically aimed at caste-based untouchability, the expansive interpretation in the Sabarimala context extends it to any form of social exclusion based on biological characteristics.

The Review: What Happens Next?

Both the Kerala and Central governments supporting the review adds political weight to the legal proceedings. A review petition under Article 137 allows the Supreme Court to review its own judgments when there is an apparent error on the face of the record. The Court may also refer the matter to a larger bench (7 or 9 judges) to reconsider the issues, particularly the scope of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine.