The Supreme Court of India will begin hearings on the Sabarimala temple entry issue on April 7. This matter, which has been pending for an extended period, involves various cases addressing critical constitutional questions about religious freedom and its relationship with equality and constitutional morality. A nine-judge Constitution Bench has been constituted to revisit essential topics regarding religious practices, equality, and constitutional sentiments linked to the temple entry matter. The Court has announced that proceedings will start at 10:30 AM on the designated date.

Timeline for Hearings Set by the Court

The Supreme Court has outlined a specific timeline for the hearings, with submissions from petitioners and supporting parties expected to be presented from April 7 to April 9. The original writ petitioners will have the opportunity to present their case from April 14 to April 16, followed by a session for rejoinders on April 22. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to these timelines, urging the counsels to coordinate effectively to ensure that both sides can present their arguments within the specified timeframe.

Government’s Involvement in the Review Process

The Union of India is actively supporting the review petitions, contesting a 2018 ruling that allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. This ruling overturned a longstanding tradition that had barred women between the ages of 10 and 50 from accessing the temple. In February 2020, a nine-judge Bench confirmed the decisions made by the Sabarimala Review Bench to refer fundamental constitutional questions to a broader forum for further examination.

Statements from Kerala Law Minister

On the day of the announcement, Kerala’s Minister of Law, P Rajeev, addressed the media regarding the Sabarimala case. He noted that the focus at this juncture is strictly on establishing a new Bench to review the previous verdict. Rajeev explained that the earlier directives related to the review petition aimed at forming a constitutional bench, emphasizing that this move represents an opportunity to discuss the implications of the existing ruling. He acknowledged that further discussions would follow depending on the Supreme Court’s guidance after the new Bench is constituted.