The decision taken by the Supreme Court to constitute a nine-judge bench to review the Sabarimala case is not merely a procedural step to revive the long-awaited constitutional reference. It is also a clear 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 highly sensitive dispute at the intersection of faith and fundamental rights.
On Saturday, the bench, headed by the CJI and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanallah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi, was notified of the order with effect from April 7.
Read also | Supreme Court notifies 9-judge bench of Sabarimala temple review; Listen from April 7
At one level, the composition reflects institutional inclusiveness. On the other hand, it appears to be calibrated to give broader legitimacy to governance that will inevitably traverse disputed territories, including women’s access to temple and mosques, basic religious practices, and the limits of judicial review on matters of faith.
Kant, who heads the bench, has had a long and varied judicial career that includes the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where he served as a judge and then 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 takes on added significance in a case involving constitutional and religious rivalries. Claims.
The inclusion of Justice Nagarathna – the only female 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 Nagaratna, who was elevated from the Karnataka High Court, has been part of several constitutional benches, and is on her way to becoming the first woman chief justice of India in 2027. Her presence on the bench that adjudicates questions of gender equality versus religious independence carries symbolic and substantive weight.
The seat draws heavily from southern India, where the dispute originated. Justices Sunderesh and Mahadevan, both from Tamil Nadu, bring experience from the Madras High Court, one of the oldest constitutional courts in the country. Justice Kumar, also from Karnataka, adds to the southern representation.
This regional installation is completed 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 of the eastern part of the country, expanding the geographical diversity of the bench.
In a case that directly involves competing interpretations of religious freedom, the Court 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 bench. Justice Masih, who has roots in Punjab and previously served 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 denominations may reinforce the perception of a broadly representative constitutional forum adjudicating matters affecting multiple religious traditions.
Judge Farally’s presence adds another dimension to the diversity of the bench. Elevated to the Supreme Court in 2024, Varali is among the few judges from a Scheduled Caste background who have served in the Supreme Court. Its inclusion resonates in a case that, although focused on religious practice, also raises larger questions about exclusion, access, and constitutional ethics.
Most of the bench members have experience as Chief Justices or Senior Judges of various High Courts, including Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Bombay, Karnataka, Madras, Patna, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Kolkata and Andhra Pradesh, reflecting a wide institutional spread. This diversity of judicial backgrounds may be important as the Court grapples with doctrinal questions such as the scope of Articles 25 and 26, the test of substantive religious practices, and the extent of judicial intervention in matters of faith.
The ICC’s power to establish benches is administrative, but it often carries deeper institutional messages. In this case, the formation appears to highlight a conscious attempt to assemble a body that reflects India’s pluralism, while at the same time deciding one of the most polarizing constitutional questions.
The Sabarimala reference is certainly not just about entering the temple. It includes broader issues, ranging from the meaning of constitutional morality to the limits of public interest issues in religious matters. Against this background, the selection of judges indicates an effort to ensure that the final ruling is not only legally reliable, but also institutionally representative.
The Sabarimala review batch includes a 39-year-old case relating to the practice of excommunication of the Dawoodi Bohra community – the oldest case pending before the Constitutional Court, where excommunication results in social boycott and denial of entry to places of worship.
The nine-judge panel will also examine whether a Persian woman retains her religious identity after marrying a person of another faith under the Special Marriage Law, another dispute regarding the boundaries between personal faith and constitutional guarantees. The Sabarimala reference is also linked to a parallel challenge regarding Muslim women’s access to mosques and steps, where petitioners have said practices that restrict women from accessing the main prayer area violate their fundamental rights. The challenge asserts that such exceptions, such as those raised in the Sabarimala case, are not necessary for the practice of Islam and must be tested in light of constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and freedom of religion.
