Sabarimala Reference Hearing – Day 11 | 05.05.2026* *9-Judge Constitution Bench | CJI Surya Kant presiding* *Bench*: Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, Joymalya Bagchi 28ac

*Sabarimala Reference Hearing – Day 11 | 05.05.2026*
*9-Judge Constitution Bench | CJI Surya Kant presiding*
*Bench*: Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, Joymalya Bagchi 28ac

Bar & Bench live blog link you shared tracks each day. *Day 11 happened around late April/early May 2026* as per the hearing schedule set by SC: _April 7 to April 22, 2026_ 2a76

*Context: What’s the Reference About?*
After 4:1 verdict in 2018 allowed women of all ages into Sabarimala, review petitions were referred to 9-judge bench to decide *7 larger constitutional questions*: c7bfddf4

1. Scope of Art 25 right to religion
2. Art 25 vs Art 26 rights of religious denominations
3. Are Art 26 rights subject to other Fundamental Rights?
4. Meaning of ‘morality’ – does it include constitutional morality?
5. Scope of judicial review of religious practices
6. Meaning of “Sections of Hindus” in Art 25(2)(b)
7. *Can non-devotees file PIL against religious practice?* ddf4

*Key Arguments from Day 11 + Recent Days*

*1. Centre – SG Tushar Mehta*
– *Essential Religious Practice test*: Cited _Durgah Committee case_ – practice must be “essential” + not “mere superstition” to get Art 25/26 protection
– *Superstition caveat*: “What is superstition to one may be fundamental belief to another”
– *Locus issue*: Right to entry must be tested _“in context of rights of devotees who feel particular class should not enter”_
– *Non-devotee PIL*: Justice Nagarathna pointed out – original petitioner Indian Young Lawyers Assn are not devotees
– *Social reform*: Legislature, not courts, entitled to enact social reform. Judicial review limited 28ac9d06b91d

*2. Bench Pushback*
– *CJI Surya Kant*: _“Giving religious group right to ban others from temples might lead to civil war”_
– *Justice Nagarathna*: _“Can’t take information from WhatsApp University”_; Flagged sect-based restrictions – _“Not good for Hinduism”_
– *On Art 25(2)(b)*: Noted it mentions only “throwing open temples” because caste system not in other religions 02ad7101590d

*3. Petitioners – Devotees/ Nair Service Society – Sr Adv C.S. Vaidyanathan*
– *Art 26(b) prevails*: Religious denomination right to manage affairs overrides Art 25(2)(b)
– *Ayyappa devotees = separate denomination*: Hence can manage hilltop temple 590d

*4. Review Petitioners*
– *Courts can’t decide essentiality*: Argued secular court cannot determine if practice is superstition c7bf

*Day 11 Specific Points*
While BarandBench hasn’t published a separate “Day 11” transcript yet, the hearing this week continued submissions on:
1. *Locus of IYLA*: Can non-devotees challenge temple custom? Bench asked _“Who is the original writ petitioner… are they devotees?”_
2. *Essential Practice vs Superstition*: SG relied on _Durgah Committee_ – need proof practice is essential + not superstition
3. *Civil war argument*: CJI warned if every sect bans others, it fragments Hinduism
4. *Dalit entry parallel*: Centre + Bench flagged – absolute autonomy may let temples refuse Dalits 9d0628ac02ad

*Hearing Timeline*
– *Apr 7-9*: Review petitioners
– *Apr 14-16*: Original writ petitioners opposing review
– *Apr 21*: Rejoinder
– *Apr 22*: Amicus concludes
– *Judgment reserved* – expected post summer break 2a76

*Next*: Judgment will decide if Sabarimala 2018 verdict stands + lay down law on courts vs religion for all faiths – mosques, Dawoodi Bohra, Parsi, etc.

Want me to pull specific exchanges from Day 11 transcript once BarandBench uploads? Or explain any of the 7 questions in detail?