Maintainability of Sabarimala Review | Judgement Summary

Sabarimala Review

Judges: S.A. Bobde CJI, R Banumathi J, Ashok Bhushan J, L.N. Rao J, M.M. Shantangoudar J, Abdul Nazeer J, Subhash Reddy J, B.R. Gavai CJI, Surya Kant CJI

Debjani M | 27th Feb 2026

On 10 February 2020, a nine-judge bench led by then Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, and Justices R. Banumati, Ashok Bhusan, L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, upheld the maintainability of a batch of review petitions challenging the  2018 Sabarimala judgement which held that customs prohibiting the entry of women was unconstitutional.  

Background

On 28 September, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, in a 4:1 majority, held that the exclusion of female devotees between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Temple violated Article 25(1) and Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. The judgement triggered a review as well as fresh writ petitions. 

The review petitions were heard by a five-judge Bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi. During the course of the review, the Bench, in a 3:2 majority, found it appropriate to refer certain constitutional questions to a larger bench. It held that the review petitions will be decided after the larger bench answers the questions. It also noted that similar issues were pending before it in matters concerning: 

  1. Right of Muslim women to enter dargahs and mosques.
  2. Denial of Parsi women married to non-Parsis into the holy fire place of Agyari.
  3. Challenge to female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra Community.

Issues framed

The key issues to be decided by a larger bench are: 

  1. The interplay between freedom of religion under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other provisions under Chapter III of the Constitution, particularly Article 14. 
  2. The meaning of the expression “public order, morality and health”under Article 25(1). 
  3. The meaning of the expression “morality” and “constitutional morality.”
  4. The extent to which the Court can determine or inquire into the essential religious practices of a religious denomination. 
  5. Whether “essential religious practice” affords constitutional protection under Article 26, among others. 

Review petitions and reference to a larger bench

Parties opposing the reference argued that the review petitions are not maintainable under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which states that review petitions cannot be used as an “appeal in disguise.” Under Order XLVII, Rule 1 a review in  civil proceedings is permissible only upon demonstration of an error apparent on the face of the record. Additionally they contended that only appeals involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation can be referred to a larger bench under Article 145(3). As the Article only mentions “appeals”, a reference to a larger bench cannot be made in a review jurisdiction.  

Parties supporting the reference submitted that the Court can determine its own jurisdiction under Article 142. It was argued that there was no provision  under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 preventing the Court from making a reference in a review petition. 

The nine-judge Bench held that no bar exists, either under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules or under Article 145(3), restricting the powers of the Court to review its own judgement or order. The Bench observed that Order XLVII, Rule 1 does not preclude the Court from entertaining review petitions arising out of writs.  Moreover, the Bench held that since Article 145(3) was not applicable in the present case as it involves a reference to a bench of less than five judges.  

The Bench relied on Behram Pesikaka v State of Bombay (1955) to hold that a reference can be made to a larger bench, even in the course of pending review petitions. On 7 April 2026, a nine-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant will decide the remaining issues—six years after the maintainability question was resolved.

Exit mobile version