Few legal questions in India stir as much emotion as Sabarimala. At its core lies a genuinely hard constitutional puzzle: when an individual’s right to worship collides with a religious community’s right to manage its own affairs, which one prevails? In 2026 that puzzle is back before the Supreme Court, where it has been argued that the Constitution “did not intend to give a religious denomination higher rights than a believer.” This article sticks to explaining the law and the competing principles, not deciding who is right.
How the dispute reached the Constitution
The Sabarimala temple in Kerala followed a practice of not allowing women of menstruating age (broadly 10–50) to enter. In 2018, in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, a Constitution Bench held by majority that this exclusion was unconstitutional. After enormous public reaction and review petitions, in 2019 the Court referred a set of larger constitutional questions — reaching beyond Sabarimala to other faiths — to a larger bench, which is why arguments continue years later.
The two articles at the heart of it
- Article 25 guarantees to every individual the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
- Article 26 guarantees to every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
The conflict is plain: what happens when a denomination’s management of its own affairs operates to exclude an individual believer from worship?
The “essential religious practices” test
Indian courts have developed a doctrine to navigate these disputes: the Constitution protects practices that are essential and integral to a religion — not every custom that has grown around it. The test is influential but debated, because it effectively asks judges to determine what is “essential” to a faith — which the larger bench has been asked to reconsider.
Why it is about much more than one temple
The referred questions cut across religions and could set the framework for how India balances individual rights, group autonomy, gender equality and constitutional morality. That breadth is why the case is watched so closely — and why reasonable, sincere people disagree about the answer.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the 2018 Sabarimala judgment about?
A Constitution Bench held by majority that excluding women of menstruating age from the temple was unconstitutional, violating their rights to equality and worship.
Why is the matter still in the Supreme Court?
After review petitions, the Court in 2019 referred broader questions affecting multiple religions to a larger bench, which are still being heard.
What is the difference between Article 25 and Article 26?
Article 25 protects every individual’s freedom of religion; Article 26 protects a denomination’s right to manage its own religious affairs. Both are subject to public order, morality and health.
What is the essential religious practices test?
A doctrine to decide whether a practice is so essential and integral to a religion that it deserves constitutional protection, as opposed to a non-essential custom.
Does the case affect only Sabarimala?
No. The referred questions are broad and could influence religious-freedom and equality disputes across different faiths.
This is a neutral explainer of a sensitive, pending matter and is not legal advice. Please consult a qualified advocate for specific questions.
