New Delhi, September 10, 2026: The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that petitions challenging Muslim inheritance rules for allegedly discriminating against women may have to wait for the verdict of a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the nine-judge bench’s ruling on judicial intervention in matters involving religion, personal law and custom was likely to “have a bearing” on the Muslim inheritance challenge.
Sabarimala Ruling Could Hold The Key
The court said a central question in the case was whether Parliament should address the issue or whether the judiciary could decide it under its writ jurisdiction, particularly in view of the legislative power contemplated under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.
Article 25(2)(b) allows the government to make laws for social welfare and reform and to open public Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Women Challenge Inheritance Rules
The observations came as the bench continued hearing petitions challenging provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, concerning intestate inheritance and testamentary succession.
The petitioners have argued that the rules discriminate against Muslim women, including by giving them smaller shares of inheritance than men.
Centre Seeks A Week To Respond
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the government would file its response within a week.
The court’s suggestion that the inheritance petitions may have to await the Sabarimala ruling is significant because the nine-judge bench has examined fundamental constitutional questions involving the relationship between religious freedom and other constitutional rights, Hindustan Times reports.
Nine-Judge Bench Verdict Awaited
The nine-judge bench reserved its judgment in May after 16 days of hearings. The reference arose from review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala judgment.
In that ruling, a five-judge bench permitted women of all ages to enter the Sree Ayyappa temple in Kerala, overturning a custom that barred women of menstruating age.
Religion And Constitutional Rights At Heart
In 2019, the Supreme Court refrained from deciding the Sabarimala review petitions directly and instead referred a series of broader constitutional questions to a larger bench.
These questions included the interplay between Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the scope of religious freedom, the rights of religious denominations and the extent to which courts can scrutinise faith-based practices.
Also Watch:
The overlap identified by the Supreme Court places the Muslim inheritance challenge within a wider constitutional debate: how far courts can intervene when religious practices or personal laws are challenged on the ground that they conflict with fundamental rights.
The eventual Sabarimala ruling could therefore shape not only the course of these petitions but also the legal framework courts use to examine similar conflicts between religious freedom and constitutional protections.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
