Supreme Court's Landmark Nine-Judge Bench to Hear Sabarimala Women Entry Review Petitions from April 7
The Supreme Court of India has announced a pivotal development in the long-standing Sabarimala temple case, scheduling hearings for review petitions before a nine-judge constitutional bench starting April 7. This decision marks a significant escalation in the judicial process, as the bench will re-examine the court's controversial 2018 verdict that permitted women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala.
Background of the Sabarimala Controversy
The Sabarimala temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, has been at the center of a heated national debate due to its traditional practice of barring women aged 10 to 50 from entering, citing religious customs. In September 2018, a five-judge Supreme Court bench, in a historic 4-1 majority ruling, declared this restriction unconstitutional, emphasizing gender equality and the right to worship. The verdict sparked widespread protests and legal challenges, leading to numerous review petitions filed by devotees, religious groups, and the Kerala government.
Details of the Upcoming Supreme Court Proceedings
The formation of a nine-judge bench underscores the complexity and constitutional importance of the Sabarimala issue. Key aspects of the upcoming hearings include:
- Bench Composition: The bench will comprise nine judges, making it one of the largest constitutional benches in recent Supreme Court history, tasked with addressing fundamental questions of religious freedom versus gender rights.
- Hearing Schedule: Proceedings are set to commence on April 7, with the court expected to delve into arguments from both petitioners and respondents over multiple sessions.
- Scope of Review: The bench will specifically review the 2018 verdict, considering whether it infringes upon religious practices protected under the Constitution, and may also examine broader issues related to women's entry in places of worship across India.
Implications and National Significance
This case holds profound implications for India's legal and social landscape. On one hand, it tests the balance between religious autonomy and progressive gender norms, while on the other, it could set precedents for similar disputes involving temple entry and women's rights. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the matter with such a large bench reflects the urgency and gravity of the constitutional questions involved, potentially reshaping jurisprudence on equality and faith.
As the nation awaits the hearings, stakeholders from religious communities, women's rights activists, and legal experts are closely monitoring developments, anticipating a ruling that could either reinforce the 2018 verdict or introduce new guidelines for religious exemptions. The outcome is poised to influence not just Sabarimala but also ongoing debates about tradition and modernity in Indian society.
