Sabarimala Case: Justice BV Nagarathna Begins Writing Verdict In Nine-Judge Bench Reference

Justice BV Nagarathna has become the first judge on the nine-member Supreme Court Constitution Bench to begin writing the judgment in the long-pending Sabarimala reference, as reported by Hindustan Times.

The development comes months after the bench concluded its 16-day hearing and reserved its verdict on May 14.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, is examining broader constitutional questions concerning religious freedom, judicial review and the “essential religious practices” doctrine. The judgment is also expected to determine how these principles apply to the review petitions arising from the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.

Besides CJI Surya Kant and Justice Nagarathna, the bench comprises Justices MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.

There is no indication yet of Justice Nagarathna’s position on the issues before the court or whether the judgment she is writing will represent the majority view or a separate opinion. Other members of the bench are also free to write separate judgments.

What Is The Sabarimala Case?

The dispute centres on the traditional practice at Kerala’s Sabarimala temple of restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the exclusionary practice. The majority held that the restriction could not be justified as an essential religious practice and found it inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.

Justice Indu Malhotra was the lone dissenter. She held that the challenge should not have been entertained and that the exclusionary practice was protected by the devotees’ right to freely practise religion under Article 25.

She also cautioned against courts determining matters of religious belief through notions of rationality or constitutional morality.

The 2018 verdict triggered a series of review petitions and raised wider questions about how courts should examine religious practices protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Why Was The Case Referred To Nine Judges?

Following the 2018 judgment, more than 50 review petitions were filed. In November 2019, a five-judge review bench, by a 3:2 majority, kept the review petitions pending and referred broader constitutional questions to a larger bench.

The reference expanded the scope of the dispute beyond Sabarimala. It raised questions concerning religious practices in different communities and the relationship between individual religious rights, denominational autonomy and the power of courts to review religious practices.

A nine-judge bench was subsequently constituted to examine these constitutional questions.

The present bench began hearing the reference on April 7 this year and heard arguments for 16 days before reserving judgment on May 14.

What Did The New Hearings Examine?

The recent proceedings focused largely on the constitutional principles that govern judicial scrutiny of religious practices.

One major issue was the “essential religious practices” test, under which courts have examined whether a particular practice is sufficiently integral to a religion to receive constitutional protection.

Justice Nagarathna was the only woman judge on the bench and, during the hearings, participated in discussions on several of the central constitutional questions, including the role of the essential religious practices test.

The bench also considered the relationship between the right of individuals to practise religion under Article 25 and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26.

Another issue was the meaning and relevance of “morality” under these constitutional provisions, including the role of constitutional morality when courts review religious practices.

The proceedings therefore went beyond the specific question of women’s entry into Sabarimala. The judges examined the broader limits of judicial intervention in matters involving religious belief and practice.

What Happens Next?

Justice Nagarathna’s decision to begin writing does not indicate what the final outcome of the reference will be. The other judges can write separate opinions, and the final position will depend on the views expressed by the nine-member bench.

The date for pronouncing the judgment has not been fixed. The verdict will have to be delivered before CJI Surya Kant retires on February 9, 2027.