Justice BV Nagarathna begins writing Sabarimala verdict as nine-judge bench weighs religious freedom

Justice BV Nagarathna has begun writing the judgment in the Supreme Court's long-pending Sabarimala reference, becoming the first member of the nine-judge Constitution Bench to do so. The development comes months after the bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, reserved its verdict following 16 days of hearings on questions involving religious freedom, judicial review and the constitutional protection available to religious practices.

The Supreme Court had reserved judgment on May 14. The bench also comprises Justices MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Other members of the bench remain free to write separate opinions.

Verdict may have wider implications

The reference stems from the Supreme Court's September 2018 Sabarimala judgment, in which a five-judge bench, by a 4:1 majority, allowed women of all ages to enter the Kerala temple. The majority held that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50 could not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Justice Indu Malhotra was the lone dissenter.

The subsequent review proceedings led to the larger constitutional reference, which requires the court to examine the relationship between Articles 14, 25 and 26, the scope of judicial review over religious practices, the meaning of a religious denomination and the extent to which courts can apply the essential religious practices doctrine.

The hearings also covered the interplay between individual rights and denominational autonomy, the power of the state to undertake religious reform and the circumstances in which constitutional courts can intervene in matters of faith.

The nine-judge bench indicated during the proceedings that the verdict could have implications beyond Sabarimala. The Supreme Court considered whether the essential religious practices test should continue to be used to determine the constitutional protection available to religious practices. It also examined whether judicial review could be excluded where a practice was claimed to be religious.

Nagarathna's questions during hearings

Justice Nagarathna, the only woman judge on the current nine-member bench, took an active role during the hearings. She questioned whether the original challenge to the Sabarimala custom was maintainable when the petitioners were not themselves devotees.

In a hearing transcript released by the Supreme Court, she specifically questioned whether any original writ petitioner who was challenging the practice was a devotee. The issue formed part of the wider debate over who could approach the court to challenge religious practices.

She also indicated that the essential religious practices doctrine could have a limited role as an aid in determining whether a practice was genuinely religious, rather than being used as a conclusive test to decide whether a religious practice deserves constitutional protection.

During the hearings, Nagarathna also stressed the need to balance social reform with the protection of religious traditions. The bench examined how Articles 15, 16, 25 and 26 should operate in relation to one another, while also considering the constitutional position of religious denominations.

The bench additionally observed that devotees visiting a particular temple may be expected to follow the customs or sampradayas associated with that temple, while considering the broader question of denominational autonomy.

A record of separate opinions

Nagarathna's authorship is significant in light of her record of writing separate opinions in major Constitution Bench cases.

She was the lone dissenter in the Supreme Court's 2023 demonetisation judgment. She held that the Centre could not invalidate the entire series of ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes through a notification and that the exercise should have been undertaken through legislation.

She was also the sole dissenting judge in the nine-judge Constitution Bench judgment concerning the legislative powers of the Centre and states over industrial alcohol. She differed from the majority on important aspects of the scope of the states' powers under Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.

Her dissent was again significant in the 2024 nine-judge Constitution Bench judgment on mineral taxation. The majority held that royalty payable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, was not a tax but a payment made by a mining lessee to the state for the right to extract minerals. It consequently held that states could impose taxes on mineral rights and that mineral-bearing land could be treated as "land" under Entry 49 of the State List.

Nagarathna disagreed, holding that royalty under the MMDR Act was itself a statutory tax on mineral rights and that mineral-bearing land could not be subjected to another layer of state taxation. She maintained that the constitutional taxation entries were mutually exclusive and warned that permitting both parliamentary and state levies could result in double taxation.

She also cautioned that overlapping state taxes could fragment India's fiscal policy and encourage unhealthy competition among states.

The 2026 MMDR amendment has since altered the legal landscape. Parliament passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026, which restricts state governments from imposing specified taxes, cesses or other levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands except under conditions prescribed by the Centre. The amendment received presidential assent on August 17.

The legislation has therefore acquired relevance in the context of the earlier mineral taxation ruling, although its provisions and constitutional implications remain distinct from the Sabarimala reference.

From Indu Malhotra to Nagarathna

The present proceedings have another notable connection with Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman judge on the 2018 Sabarimala bench.

While then CJI Dipak Misra and Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud formed the majority that struck down the exclusion of women aged between 10 and 50, Malhotra dissented.

She held that the challenge should not have been entertained and that the exclusionary practice was protected by devotees' right to freely practise their religion under Article 25. She also cautioned against courts determining matters of religious belief through notions of rationality or constitutional morality.

Nearly eight years after Malhotra stood alone in dissent against the judgment opening Sabarimala to women of all ages, Nagarathna is now writing the judgment arising from the larger constitutional examination of questions that emerged from that verdict.

Possible verdict date

The Supreme Court has not formally announced a judgment date. However, while hearing a separate challenge to the Bodh Gaya Temple Act in August, the court indicated that the Sabarimala reference verdict could come by October 6. The Bodh Gaya matter was subsequently posted for October 6, after lawyers sought that it be taken up after the Sabarimala judgment.

The verdict is consequently expected to have significance well beyond the original dispute over women's entry into Sabarimala, particularly for the constitutional relationship between religious autonomy, individual rights, social reform and judicial review.

Nagarathna's judicial career

Nagarathna was elevated to the Supreme Court in August 2021 after serving as a judge of the Karnataka High Court. Born on October 30, 1962, she began practising law in 1987 and became a permanent judge of the Karnataka High Court in 2010.

She is due to retire on October 29, 2027. Under the established seniority convention and the present line of succession, she is in line to become the first woman Chief Justice of India. Her elevation to the top judicial office would come in 2027, before her retirement later that year.