Supreme Court’s Sabarimala review bench reflects diversity across faith, region and gender

THe sublime margaret court’s conclusion to be a nine-judge bench for the Sabarimala critique is not merely a procedural step to revive a long-pending constitutional reference. It is also a telling administrative signal from Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant — one that brings together a carefully balanced cross-section of the court in terms of gender, religion, caste and regional representation to adjudicate a deeply sensitive dispute at the intersection of faith and fundamental rights.Notified on Saturday, the bench, headed by the CJI and comprising justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi, will hear the matter from April 7.Also read | Supreme Court notifies 9-judge bench for Sabarimala temple review; hearing from April 7At one level, the composition reflects institutional inclusivity. At another, it appears calibrated to lend wider legitimacy to a verdict that will inevitably traverse contested terrain, encompassing women’s entry into a temple and a mosque, essential religious practices, and the limits of judicial review over matters of faith.CJI Kant, who is heading the bench, brings with him a long and varied judicial career spanning the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where he served as judge and later as the chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, before his elevation to the Supreme Court in 2019. Known for his pragmatic approach and emphasis on balancing individual rights with institutional stability, his administrative decision to constitute a socially and regionally diverse bench assumes added significance in a case involving competing constitutional and religious claims.The inclusion of Justice Nagarathna — the only woman judge on the current bench of the Supreme Court — is particularly significant given that one of the central issues in the Sabarimala case concerns the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the temple. Justice Nagarathna, who was elevated from the Karnataka High Court, has been part of several constitution benches and is in line to become India’s first woman Chief Justice in 2027. Her presence on the bench adjudicating questions of gender equality versus religious autonomy carries both symbolic and substantive weight.The bench draws heavily from southern India, where the dispute originates. Justices Sundresh and Mahadevan, both from Tamil Nadu, bring experience from the Madras High Court, one of the country’s oldest constitutional courts. Justice Kumar, also from Karnataka, adds to the southern representation.This regional anchoring is complemented by Justice Bagchi from West Bengal, a former Calcutta High Court judge who was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2025. His inclusion ensures representation from the eastern part of the country, broadening the bench’s geographic diversity.In a case that directly implicates competing interpretations of religious freedom, the bench also reflects India’s religious diversity. Justice Amanullah, who was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2023 from the Patna High Court, is among the few Muslim judges on the court. Justice Masih, with roots in Punjab and prior service as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, comes from a Christian background.While judicial decisions are expected to remain insulated from personal beliefs, the presence of judges from different religious communities may reinforce the perception of a broadly representative constitutional forum deciding questions that affect multiple faith traditions.Justice Varale’s presence adds another dimension to the bench’s diversity. Elevated to the Supreme Court in 2024, Varale is among the few judges from a scheduled caste background to have served on the top court. His inclusion resonates in a case that, while centred on religious practice, also raises larger questions of exclusion, access and constitutional morality.Most members of the bench bring experience as chief justices or senior judges of various high courts, including Punjab & Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Bombay, Karnataka, Madras, Patna, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Andhra Pradesh, reflecting a wide institutional spread. This diversity of judicial backgrounds may prove significant as the court grapples with doctrinal questions such as the scope of Articles 25 and 26, the essential religious practices test, and the extent of judicial intervention in matters of faith.The CJI’s power to constitute benches is administrative, but it often carries deeper institutional messaging. In this instance, the composition appears to underscore a conscious attempt to assemble a bench that mirrors India’s pluralism while deciding one of its most polarising constitutional questions.To be sure, the Sabarimala reference is not just about temple entry. It encompasses broader issues, ranging from the meaning of constitutional morality to the limits of public interest litigation in religious matters. Against this backdrop, the choice of judges signals an effort to ensure that the eventual ruling is not only legally authoritative but also institutionally representative.The Sabarimala review batch includes the 39-year-old case concerning the Dawoodi Bohra community’s practice of excommunication — the oldest pending case before a constitution bench, where expulsion results in social boycott and denial of entry to places of worship.The nine-judge bench will further examine whether a Parsi woman retains her religious identity after marrying a person of another faith under the Special Marriage Act, another dispute engaging the boundaries between personal faith and constitutional guarantees. The Sabarimala reference is also tied to a parallel challenge concerning the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, where petitioners have argued that practices restricting women from accessing the main prayer area violate their fundamental rights. The challenge contends that such exclusions, much like those questioned in Sabarimala, are not essential to the practice of Islam and must be tested against constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and freedom of religion.