New Delhi, February 2026 — India’s highest court is gearing up for what is being described as a “Constitutional Tug-of-War” that could fundamentally redefine the boundary between state law and religious sanctity.
A massive nine-judge Constitution Bench has been formed to decide a question that has simmered for 70 years: Does the Constitution stop at the gates of a temple, mosque, or church? While the immediate trigger is the review of the Sabarimala temple entry case, the implications stretch far beyond a single shrine.
The Trigger: Beyond the Sabarimala Gates
The controversy exploded following the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, where the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the temple. While the majority ruling compared barring women to “untouchability” under Article 17, the decision faced unprecedented resistance—not just from men, but from thousands of women under the “Ready to Wait” campaign.
The core of the dissent, led by Justice Indu Malhotra, argues that courts cannot judge the “rationality” of faith. This has sparked a national debate: If a judge decides which religious practices are “logical,” does faith lose its meaning and become mere science?
A Pattern of Religious Friction
The Supreme Court has realized that Sabarimala is not an isolated incident but part of a wider pattern across all faiths:
- Haji Ali Dargah: A similar battle for female entry rights that saw a court-ordered breakthrough in 2016.
- Parsi Fire Temples: Exclusionary practices against women who marry outside the community.
- Dawoodi Bohras: The power of religious heads to excommunicate members from the community.
The nine-judge bench is now tasked with writing a definitive rulebook for “Religiosity vs. Constitutionalism” in 21st-century India.
The “Essential Practices” Doctrine
The legal battle centers on the “Essential Religious Practices” doctrine established in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case. The doctrine states that the government can only regulate “secular” aspects of religion (money and management) while leaving “essential” rituals to the faith.
However, over the years, judges have found themselves acting as theologians—deciding that mosque prayer or specific ritual dances are “not essential”. Critics argue that judges lack the expertise in Vedas, Quran, or Bible to make these calls, turning constitutional questions into emotional ones.
The Double Standard of State Control
Perhaps the most explosive point of the debate is the state’s control over Hindu temples. In Tamil Nadu alone, the government manages over 36,000 temples and their donations under the HR&CE Act, while mosques and churches remain largely autonomous.
This has created a “Double Standard” crisis: If a temple is a “secular” public property whose money the government can take, then it must follow all constitutional equality laws. But if it is an autonomous religious body, why does the government control its administration?.
Bottom Line
This is not just a court case; it is a rewrite of India’s social contract. If the bench rules that Equality is supreme, centuries-old traditions could vanish in a day. If Tradition wins, the doors to social reform may close indefinitely. The nine judges must now decide if they are the protectors of the Constitution or the new priests of Indian faith.
