JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA VOL. 21, 2022 (2018).104 The critical issue involved in this case is whether barring women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from entering the Sabrimala temple, is constitutionally consistent? By a majority of 4:1, the Constitution Bench has held that exclusion of women of menstruating age from the Sabrimala temple is unconstitutional.105 This judgement has turned out to be highly contentious, both in the judicial and popular public domain, leading to the filing of as many as 64 review petitions, including review pleas, seeking review of the verdict of the Constitution Bench. In view of the social upheaval caused by the judgement of the divided court, the review petitions were heard in the open court in an unprecedented manner. The review judgement was, however, kept reserved on February 6, 2019 after the conclusion of arguments. It was pronounced after a gap of about nine months (full gestation period!) on November 14, 2019, referring the matter to seven-Judge Constitution Bench on seven issues, without deciding the review petitions, by a majority of 3:2! The centrality of seven issues, however, revolves around one basic, fundamental question of constitutional interpretation; namely, how to construe the interplay between the fundamental right to ‘equality and non-discrimination’ under Articles 14 and 15 on the one hand, and the Fundamental Right to ‘freedom of religion’ under Articles 25 and 26 on the other in our constitutional scheme of things?106 When the seven-Judge Constitution Bench met for hearing on January 6, 2020, the seven-Issue Reference was instantly referred to be heard by the Constitution Bench of nine Judges, which would commence hearing from January 13, 2020. However, at the commencement of hearing on January 13, 2020, the nineJudge bench of the Supreme Court clarified that “it will confine itself in answering the larger issues, and will not decide the review petitions,” and then dispersed. The chiselled judgement of the nine-Judge Constitution Bench on the inter se relationship between the two sets of 104 See generally, the author’s critique of Sabrimala Temple case (2018), which was presented by him as the “57th PANJAB UNIVERSITY COLLOQUIUM” – Special Lecture – on August 27, 2019, under the title, “Socio-religious Reform through Judicial Intervention: Its limit and limitation under the Constitution,” and published as such in the form of a Monograph by the Panjab University (With a Foreword by Justice Ashok Bhan, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India) [Publication Bureau, Panjab University, Chandigarh. First Edition: 2020]. Hereinafter referred to simply, Critique. The Sabrimala Temple case (2018) refers to Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. The State of Kerala and Ors., [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006, decided on 28.09.2018] per Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ. 105 Per Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.), Rohinton Fali Nariman, and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ. (concurring); and Indu Malhotra, J. (dissenting). 106 See the author’s analysis of the seven issues appended as an added post-script to his Critique, ibid. 26