Key Points
Justice B V Nagarathna asserted that “a Hindu is a Hindu and can go to any temple,” reinforcing the bench’s stance against exclusion based on denominational identity
The Supreme Court of India examined submissions on mosque practices, where the All India Muslim Personal Law Board stated that Islam does not bar women from entering mosques, though certain practices and discipline apply
The bench emphasised that constitutional cases must rely on established legal principles, cautioning against the use of informal or opinion-based sources, including references likened to “WhatsApp University”
The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench continued hearing the Sabarimala reference case on April 23, 2026, with some strong remarks on religious identity and the importance of relying on credible sources in court. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant led the bench, which has been hearing the case since its maiden hearing on 7th April, 2026.
One of the biggest takeaways from the day 8 hearing was Justice B V Nagarathna's straight forward remark that a Hindu is a Hindu and can go to any temple. This came during arguments about whether Hindu temples can bar entry to certain groups of worshippers based on their denominational identity.
The court had made a similar point on the previous Day 7 hearing as well, when it said that temples cannot exclude others on denominational lines and that doing so would only end up weakening the denomination itself. Senior advocate Dwivedi had argued that a religious denomination is a closed and disciplined group that is protected under Article 26 of the Constitution. The bench did not seem convinced by this argument, making it clear that the idea of exclusion sits poorly within the broader Hindu faith.
The verdict of the Sabarimala reference case will have a bearing on the 2018 petition filed by Yasmeen Zuber Ahmad Peerzade and her husband Zuber, a Pune-based couple who sought permission for Muslim women to enter mosques and offer prayers.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) also made its position clear before the court in the hearing. Advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the board, told the bench that there is no bar in Islam on Muslim women visiting mosques. "There is no quarrel among the religious denominations in Muslims that women can enter into mosques. And that too for prayer… But there is a certain discipline that has to be followed," he said. The board clarified that while it has no objection to women entering mosques, petitions seeking entry through the main door or praying without a barrier separating them from men should be rejected.
Shamshad further explained that attending congregational prayers is mandatory for men but not for women. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that the reason women are not required to attend is that they may be needed at home to look after the children when others go for prayers. The lawyer also pointed out that unlike temples, there is no concept of a sanctum sanctorum inside a mosque. "If there is no sanctum sanctorum inside the mosque, then nobody can insist on standing at a particular place or, for that matter, to be the first to lead the namaz," he said.
The Sabarimala case goes back to 2018, when a five-judge bench ruled by a 4:1 majority that women of all ages should be allowed to enter the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala. The decision sparked widespread protests, after which the matter was sent to a larger bench to look at bigger constitutional questions, mainly around Articles 25 and 26, which deal with religious freedom and the rights of religious groups.
The case has since grown much larger. As many as 66 matters are now linked to this reference, covering questions like whether Muslim women have the right to enter mosques, whether Parsi women who marry outside the community can enter Fire Temples, and whether the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community can be allowed to continue.
The hearing also had a lighter moment that carried a serious message. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who was appearing for the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, quoted politician Shashi Tharoor from an article in The Indian Express. The line he cited was: "When the gavel falls on matters of deep-seated belief, it must do so with an awareness of the limitations of legal logic."
See also: ECI Hands Over Malda Violence Probe to NIA After Supreme Court’s Direction
When questioned about using such a source, Kaul defended himself by saying there is never any harm in all humility, and added, "If knowledge and wisdom come from any source, any country, any university, it should be welcome."
Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged this but pointed out that the court respects all eminent persons, but personal opinions are personal opinions. Justice Nagarathna then said in a lighter tone that the court would not be drawing from "WhatsApp University." The point was simple: a case of this importance must be decided on solid legal reasoning and constitutional principles, not on opinion articles or informal sources.
Arguments from the Centre, temple devotee organisations, and the Travancore Devaswom Board have already been completed. Senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and J Sai Deepak finished their submissions on April 21. The nine-judge bench, which includes Justices Nagarathna, Sundresh, Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi alongside the Chief Justice, continues to hear the remaining arguments and is expected to deliberate on these complex questions in the days ahead.
The hearing will continue next week.
Suggested reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store
