On 22 May 2026, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Surya Kant reserved its verdict in the Sabarimala Reference after 16 days of hearings. For judiciary aspirants preparing for BPSC, UP PCS-J, MPSC, RJS, DJS and every state judicial service in 2026, this is the single most important constitutional development of the year — the answers will reshape Articles 25 and 26 jurisprudence for a generation.
If you cannot articulate the seven referred questions, the difference between Article 25(1) and 26(b), and how the Court has historically tested an “essential religious practice,” your Constitutional Law mains answer in 2026 will be incomplete. This guide breaks it all down.
What is the Sabarimala Reference?
The Reference traces back to the Supreme Court’s September 2018 verdict (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala) where a 5-judge Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the customary bar on women of menstruating age (10-50 years) entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The lone dissent came from Justice Indu Malhotra.
Review petitions were filed. In November 2019, a 5-judge Bench declined to decide the review on merits and instead referred a clutch of broader constitutional questions to a larger 9-judge Bench — questions that go well beyond Sabarimala and touch the entry of Muslim women in dargahs and mosques, the excommunication of Parsi women married outside the faith, female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and the general scope of judicial review over religious practice.
The Nine-Judge Bench (2026 Composition)
The Bench that heard the matter from 7 April to 22 May 2026 comprises:
- Chief Justice Surya Kant (presiding)
- Justice B. V. Nagarathna
- Justice M. M. Sundresh
- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- Justice Aravind Kumar
- Justice Augustine George Masih
- Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Justice R. Mahadevan
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Memorise the composition — examiners frequently ask for the presiding judge and the strength of the Bench in objective questions.
The Seven Referred Questions — Memorise These
The Bench is examining seven questions framed by the 2019 reference order. In condensed form:
- Interplay of Articles 25 & 26 — Can the Article 25(1) freedom of an individual override the Article 26(b) right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion?
- Meaning of “morality” in Articles 25 & 26 — Does “morality” mean constitutional morality or sectional/popular morality?
- Scope of judicial review — How far can a court go in reviewing a religious practice to determine whether it is an “essential religious practice” (ERP)?
- Article 25(2)(b) “Hindus” — What is the meaning of “sections of Hindus”?
- Religious denomination — Whether the test in S. P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983) needs reconsideration.
- PIL standing — Whether persons not belonging to a religious denomination can file PILs questioning that denomination’s practices.
- Essential religious practice test — Whether the ERP doctrine from Commissioner, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra (1954) requires reformulation.
Constitutional Provisions in Play — Bare-Act Drill
Article 25(1): “Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”
Article 25(2): Permits the State to make law (a) regulating economic, financial, political or secular activity, and (b) providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Article 26: Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination has the right to (a) establish and maintain institutions, (b) manage its own affairs in matters of religion, (c) own and acquire movable and immovable property, and (d) administer such property in accordance with law.
The tension is razor-sharp: Article 25(1) gives the individual a right; Article 26(b) gives the denomination an autonomy. When they collide — as in Sabarimala — which prevails?
Six Cases Every Judiciary Aspirant Must Cite
- Commissioner, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954) — Origin of the ERP doctrine; coined by Justice B. K. Mukherjea.
- S. P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983) — Three-fold test for a religious denomination: common faith, common organisation, distinct name.
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) — Jehovah’s Witnesses national anthem case; expansive reading of Article 25(1).
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) — Triple talaq struck down; ERP applied to Muslim personal law.
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) — The 4:1 Sabarimala majority.
- Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Reference) (2019) — The 5-judge order making the present reference.
Why This Matters for Your Mains Paper
Constitutional Law in every state judicial services mains paper asks at least one essay-type question on fundamental rights. In the last three cycles, BPSC, RJS and UP PCS-J have set questions on freedom of religion, ERP and the Sabarimala line of cases. The 2026-27 cycle is almost guaranteed to feature a question framed around the upcoming nine-judge verdict.
You need to be able to: (1) state the seven questions, (2) reproduce the bare text of Articles 25 and 26, (3) trace the ERP doctrine from 1954 to 2018, and (4) take a reasoned position. Mechanical recall of the 2018 majority is no longer enough — examiners want awareness of the pending reconsideration.
Pair this article with our deep-dive on the Supreme Court 3-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judge and our BPSC 33rd Prelims Final Plan for a complete current-affairs + strategy bundle. For our state-wise vacancy tracker, see the UP PCS-J 2026 playbook. Reference our complete Judiciary Gurukul home for daily updates.
How to Answer If the Question Comes Tomorrow
Structure: (1) Introduce the 2018 majority and the 2019 reference. (2) List the seven questions. (3) Discuss the Article 25 vs 26 tension with two cases each. (4) Take a position on constitutional morality vs sectional morality. (5) Conclude with the federal-secular character of the Constitution as a guiding principle. Keep it to 800-1,000 words.
Frequently Asked Questions
When will the Sabarimala verdict be delivered?
The nine-judge Bench reserved judgment on 22 May 2026. A reserved judgment of this complexity typically takes 4-8 months. Watch for delivery between September 2026 and January 2027.
Will the 2018 Sabarimala judgment be overruled?
The Reference does not directly review the 2018 judgment — it answers broader constitutional questions whose answers will then govern the pending Sabarimala review.
Is the “essential religious practice” test in the Constitution?
No. ERP is a judge-made doctrine traced to the 1954 Sri Lakshmindra case. The Reference asks whether the test itself requires reformulation.
Which articles other than 25 and 26 are relevant?
Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination including on grounds of sex), Article 17 (abolition of untouchability), and Article 21 (dignity).
What was Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent in 2018?
She held that issues of deep religious sentiment ought not to be tested on rationality; that what is “essential” is for the religious community to decide; and that constitutional morality cannot override pluralism.
