CURRENT AFFAIRS | 30 APRIL 2026
CLAT GK + Polity & Constitutional Law
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, on Tuesday signalled deep reluctance to revisit the September 2018 Sabarimala verdict, with the CJI remarking that the Court “doesn’t want to be party to annihilation of religion” and that matters of religion are ultimately “a matter of conscience” on which neither courts nor legislatures should ordinarily pass judgement.
The bench is hearing review petitions against the 28 September 2018 ruling that struck down the long-standing bar on entry of women of menstruating age (10-50) into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioners, urged the Court to read Article 26(b) as a recognition of India’s religious diversity rather than a tool to override it.
What Happened
The nine-judge bench comprises CJI Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. During the hearing the CJI observed that essentially religious questions are matters of individual and collective conscience, and that the constitutional courts must therefore tread carefully before adjudicating on them. The bench was constituted in 2019 by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi to settle larger questions thrown up by the 2018 majority verdict, including the scope of Articles 25 and 26 and the doctrine of Essential Religious Practices.
The Background
In 2018, a 5-judge bench (4-1 majority, Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting) in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala held that the bar on women of menstruating age violated Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 25, and that Ayyappa devotees were not a separate religious denomination under Article 26. Review petitions were filed almost immediately, and a 5-judge bench in November 2019 referred a clutch of overlapping issues — including Muslim women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women married outside the community, and female genital cutting in the Dawoodi Bohra community — to a 9-judge bench for an authoritative reading of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26.
Constitutional & Legal Framework
- Art. 25 — Freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion (subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III rights).
- Art. 26 — Right of every religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, including the establishment of institutions and administration of property.
- Essential Religious Practices doctrine — Originated in Shirur Mutt (1954); courts protect only those practices essential to the religion’s character.
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v. Kerala (2018) — Struck down the entry restriction; held Ayyappa devotees were not a separate denomination.
- Sabarimala Review (2019 reference) — Wider questions on the limits of judicial review of religious practices referred to a larger bench.
Why This Matters
The 9-judge bench’s eventual ruling will set the framework not just for Sabarimala but for every future challenge to a religious community’s internal practices — Muslim women’s mosque entry, Parsi inter-faith exclusion, FGC in Dawoodi Bohra, and beyond. The CJI’s “matter of conscience” framing signals a potentially narrower judicial role and a stronger reading of Article 26 denominational autonomy. This is one of the most consequential constitutional cases of the decade.
CLAT 2027 — Why You Must Know This
This story is gold for CLAT GK and Legal Reasoning. Examiners love passages on Articles 25–26, the Essential Religious Practices doctrine, and the conflict between individual rights (Art. 14, 15, 21) and group rights (Art. 26). Memorise the bench composition, the 2018 majority/dissent, and the four reference questions before the 9-judge bench. Expect a Legal Reasoning passage with a “principle: religious denominations have autonomy” + “facts: temple bars a class of devotees” stem.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Bench Strength | 9 judges |
| Headed By | CJI Surya Kant |
| Verdict Under Review | Indian Young Lawyers Association v. Kerala (28 Sept 2018) |
| Counsel for Petitioners | Sr Adv Indira Jaising |
| Core Articles | Arts. 25 & 26 |
| Key Doctrine | Essential Religious Practices |
| Temple / Deity | Sabarimala, Kerala / Lord Ayyappa |
Mnemonic
SABARI = Surya Kant CJI · Art. 25 & 26 · Bench of 9 · Ayyappa devotees · Review of 2018 verdict · Indira Jaising for petitioners.
Test Your Knowledge — 10 Question Quiz
Take this quick quiz to lock in the concepts:
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
Source: The Indian Express, 30 April 2026.
