What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

They may ask which Article was used to file the original petition (Article 32) versus which Articles were argued to be violated (14, 15, 25). They may also confuse the 2018 bench size (5-judge) with the 2026 review bench size (9-judge). Another trap is swapping the political stances of LDF (pro-entry) and UDF (anti-entry).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: April 7, 2026 (Hearing date for review) 2. Target this Nodal Body: Nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court 3. Target this Legal Point: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 3 of 31

SC 9-Judge Bench to Hear Sabarimala Review Petitions on April 7, 2026 on 2018 Verdict Allowing Women Entry

Q: Under which article of the Constitution did the Indian Young Lawyers Association originally file the petition challenging the Sabarimala entry ban in the Supreme Court?

Article 32, Article 32 grants the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The petition was filed under Article 32, challenging the ban as a violation of fundamental rights like equality and freedom of religion.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Sabarimala case: 1. The 2018 Supreme Court verdict was delivered by a seven-judge constitution bench. 2. The verdict struck down a rule that allowed the exclusion of women based on custom. 3. The review petitions against the 2018 verdict are scheduled to be heard by a nine-judge constitution bench. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Only 2 and 3, Statement 1 is incorrect: The 2018 verdict was delivered by a five-judge constitution bench (4:1 majority), not a seven-judge bench. Statement 2 is correct: It struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965. Statement 3 is correct: As per the article, a nine-judge bench will hear the review petitions starting April 7, 2026.

Q: On which date is the nine-judge Constitution Bench scheduled to start hearing the Sabarimala review petitions, as per the article?

April 7, 2026, The article clearly states that the Supreme Court said the nine-judge Constitution Bench will start hearing the review petitions on April 7, 2026. February 16, 2026, is the date the announcement was made. September 28, 2018, is the date of the original verdict.

Q: What was the primary constitutional conflict at the heart of the Sabarimala case, as highlighted in the legal challenge?

Conflict between the right to freedom of religion and the right to equality and non-discrimination, The petition sought to declare the entry ban unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), and 25 (Freedom of religion). The defense relied on Articles 25 and 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs). Thus, the core conflict is between religious freedom and gender equality.

Polity Social IssuesCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

18 Feb 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:April 7, 2026September 28, 2018Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965

Bodies:Supreme CourtKerala High CourtTravancore Devaswom BoardIndian Young Lawyers Association

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.The Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution Bench will start hearing review petitions on April 7, 2026, regarding its 2018 verdict allowing women of all ages into Sabarimala temple.

2.The 2018 verdict by a 5-judge bench (4:1) had struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, as unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, and 25.

3.The Kerala government's stance has flipped between supporting and opposing women's entry, depending on whether the LDF (supportive) or UDF (opposed) is in power.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing of review petitions against its landmark 2018 Sabarimala verdict for April 7, 2026, before a nine-judge Constitution Bench. This case sits at the complex intersection of religious freedom (Articles 25-26), gender equality (Articles 14-15), and judicial review, making it a critical topic for polity and social justice sections of major exams.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Next Hearing DateApril 7, 2026

Bench Size for Review9-Judge Constitution Bench

Original Verdict DateSeptember 28, 2018

Original Bench Size5-Judge Bench (4:1 Majority)

Rule Struck DownRule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965

1-Minute Revision

›Next Hearing Date: April 7, 2026
›Bench Size for Review: 9-Judge Constitution Bench
›Target this Data: April 7, 2026 (Hearing date for review)
›Target this Nodal Body: Nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
›Target this Legal Point: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Judicial Review

A nine-judge Supreme Court bench will review the 2018 verdict on women's entry into Sabarimala temple starting April 7, 2026.

📜

Constitutional Clash

The case pits religious freedom under Articles 25 & 26 against the right to equality (Articles 14 & 15) and prohibition of gender discrimination.

🔄

Political Volatility

The Kerala government's legal stance has changed with ruling parties: LDF supports women's entry, while UDF opposes it as an essential religious practice.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The Sabarimala temple traditionally barred women aged 10-50. The legal battle began in 1990 in Kerala HC, which upheld the ban in 1991. The core constitutional challenge was mounted in 2006 by the Indian Young Lawyers Association under Article 32, targeting Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Kerala Rules that authorized the exclusion.

Core Analysis & Implications

The 2018 verdict was a landmark for gender justice but sparked massive socio-political backlash, impacting the 2019 Lok Sabha elections in Kerala. The referral to a larger bench in 2019 and now a 9-judge bench indicates the Court's acknowledgment of the verdict's broader implications for defining 'essential religious practice' and balancing it with constitutional morality across religions, not just Hinduism.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The 9-judge bench's review, framed around seven questions from 2020, will not just reconsider Sabarimala but potentially set a broader precedent on the interplay between religious autonomy and fundamental rights. The outcome will have a significant impact on similar debates in other religious institutions regarding entry based on gender, caste, or menstruation.

Key Facts at a Glance

Next Hearing DateApril 7, 2026

Bench Size for Review9-Judge Constitution Bench

Original Verdict DateSeptember 28, 2018

Original Bench Size5-Judge Bench (4:1 Majority)

Rule Struck DownRule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Under which article of the Constitution did the Indian Young Lawyers Association originally file the petition challenging the Sabarimala entry ban in the Supreme Court?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Sabarimala case:

1. The 2018 Supreme Court verdict was delivered by a seven-judge constitution bench.

2. The verdict struck down a rule that allowed the exclusion of women based on custom.

3. The review petitions against the 2018 verdict are scheduled to be heard by a nine-judge constitution bench.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, Banking, SSC

On which date is the nine-judge Constitution Bench scheduled to start hearing the Sabarimala review petitions, as per the article?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

What was the primary constitutional conflict at the heart of the Sabarimala case, as highlighted in the legal challenge?

All 15 MCQs ▸

Read original article from Indian Express

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →Social IssuesView Topic MCQs →

PreviousIndia-France Elevate to Special Global Strategic Partnership with 21 Outcomes, Tata-Airbus H125 Helicopter in 2027 Next Bombay HC Permits MTP for 16-Year-Old Rape Victim at 31 Weeks, Citing SC Order on Reproductive Autonomy

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

SC Special Bench to Decide OBC Creamy Layer Verdict's Applicability to CSE 2025

The Supreme Court will hear the Centre's plea seeking clarity on whether its March 2026 OBC creamy layer verdict applies to CSE 2025, which was largely concluded before the judgment. This tests the 'rules of the game' doctrine in service law and affects hundreds of OBC candidates' reservation status.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Nine-Judge Bench Revisits 'Industry' Definition: Bangalore Water Supply Case (1978) Under Scrutiny

The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench is set to rule on the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, potentially expanding or contracting labour protections for workers in hospitals, educational institutions, and government welfare schemes. This landmark decision could impact millions of employees and reshape industrial relations law.

Polity Current Affairs

SC’s Nine-Judge Bench Split: ‘Industry’ Definition Retains 1978 Triple Test for Pending Cases

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a fractured verdict on what constitutes an 'industry' under labour law. The judges agreed that pending cases under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will continue to be decided under the 1978 'triple test' from Bangalore Water Supply case. The new Industrial Relations Code, 2020 must be interpreted independently, and the ruling does not extend the old jurisprudence forward.

Polity Current Affairs

Rajya Sabha Passes Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2026, Raising Judge Strength to 38

The Rajya Sabha has cleared the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the apex court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The Bill replaces a May ordinance, but Opposition MPs questioned the ordinance route and highlighted the persistent diversity deficit in judicial appointments. This is a high-yield Polity topic for Prelims and Mains, with concrete data on SC/ST/OBC/minority/women representation and judiciary infrastructure.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Judge Flags Frivolous Criminal Cases, 4.27 Cr Pending, Calls for Amnesty

Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has sharply criticized the filing of frivolous criminal cases, including those over food choices, poems, and social media posts. He proposed a one-time amnesty for non-serious cases to reduce the massive 4.27 crore pending criminal caseload, highlighting systemic issues in criminal justice and policing.

Polity Current Affairs

Govt to SC: Only Parliament Can Extend Creamy Layer to SC/ST; Cites Article 341, E V Chinnaiah Case

The government has told the Supreme Court that extending the creamy layer principle to SC/ST is a policy decision for Parliament alone. This reaffirms that reservation for SC/ST is based on historical social criteria, not just economic status, and the creamy layer concept currently applies only to OBCs.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Releases New Gender Sensitivity Handbook, Replaces 2023 Version; Recommends Survivor-Centric Language & Trauma-Informed Court Practices

The Supreme Court has released a new report titled 'Judgments and Gender' replacing its 2023 handbook on combating gender stereotypes. The report, drafted by an expert committee headed by former SC judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, provides practical guidelines for judges to use survivor-centric language, avoid morality-laden expressions, and adopt trauma-informed courtroom practices. This is crucial for UPSC as it reflects judicial reforms in gender sensitivity and victim protection.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Delhi-NCR Sexual Assaults, Cites Article 21 and Nirbhaya Parallel

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of recent sexual assault cases in Delhi-NCR, flagging lax patrolling and administrative failures that make public spaces 'zones of high risk'. The court invoked Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and drew a painful parallel to the 2012 Nirbhaya case, demanding accountability and a measurable response from authorities. This has major implications for law enforcement accountability, women's safety, and judicial oversight.

Start Today's Quiz(15 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

15 Qs • 5-7 Mins

SC 9-Judge Bench to Hear Sabarimala Review Petitions on April 7, 2026 on 2018 Verdict Allowing Women Entry

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Judicial Review

Constitutional Clash

Political Volatility

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance