New Delhi, Feb. 17 -- The Supreme Court on Monday set the stage for the final hearing of the long-pending Sabarimala review, bringing back to life a constitutional controversy that has remained in cold storage for six years even as it could reshape the court's approach to religion-rights conflicts. The batch of matters arising out of the review of the 2018 verdict allowing entry of women of all ages into Kerala's Sabarimala temple was last substantively taken up in February 2020. It will now be heard from April 7, with arguments expected to conclude by April 22. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, on Monday issued procedural directions for the hearing of the reference that has since grown into one of the most significant examinations of religious freedom under the Constitution. The bench clarified that the directions regarding the constitution and composition of the nine-judge bench will be issued by the CJI on the administrative side. The court noted that pursuant to the 2019 reference order, a nine-judge bench had been constituted. Objections to the very maintainability of referring questions to a larger bench during the pendency of review petitions were conclusively decided in February 2020. The court had then held that it was competent to refer questions of law to a larger bench even while considering review petitions. With that issue settled, the path now stands cleared for substantive adjudication, the bench noted in its Monday order. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, submitted that they are supporting the review petitions, which means that the Centre opposes women's entry into the temple. Also Read: Women's entry into Sabarimala rekindled ahead of SC hearing; opposition seeks clarity from govt The February 2020 order had framed seven sweeping constitutional questions, including the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution; need to delineate the expression 'constitutional morality'; the extent to which courts can enquire into particular religious practices; the meaning of sections of Hindus under Article 25 and whether 'essential religious practices' of denomination or a section thereof are protected under Article 26. Another question was the "permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to such religious denomination". On Monday, the bench directed parties to file written submissions by March 14 and fixed April 7 to commence hearing the batch, assigning six dates in the period up to April 22. Significantly, the Sabrimala review will anchor a broader cluster of matters raising overlapping questions on the limits of judicial scrutiny in religious affairs. The batch will also include the 39-year-old case concerning the Dawoodi Bohra community's practice of excommunication -- the oldest pending case before a constitution bench, where the expulsion of a member results in social boycott and denial of entry to places of worship. The nine-judge bench will further examine whether a Parsi woman retains her religious identity after marrying a person of another faith under the Special Marriage Act, another dispute engaging the boundaries between personal faith and constitutional guarantees. The revival of the Sabrimala reference marks a decisive institutional step after years of uncertainty following the 2019 review order and the 2020 ruling upholding the reference to a larger bench. The adjudication is expected to have far-reaching implications on how courts balance essential religious practices, denominational autonomy and individual rights. Together, the seven issues transform the Sabarimala review from a temple-entry dispute into a foundational reconsideration by the highest judiciary of how the Constitution seeks to balance religious freedom, equality, reform and judicial power. A 47-year-old labour law precedent under review Separately, the CJI also announced that another long-pending nine-judge bench reference concerning the definition of "industry" under labour law will be taken up on March 17 and 18. The lead case, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Jai Bir Singh, seeks reconsideration of the expansive interpretation of "industry" laid down by a seven-judge bench in 1978 in the Bangalore Water Supply ruling. This verdict led to a situation where even universities, charitable organisations and autonomous institutions could be included within the ambit of "industry". The ruling subsequently generated sustained criticism from governments and employers, who argued that it blurred the distinction between sovereign functions of the State and commercial or industrial activities. A seven-judge bench had in 2017 referred the issue to the larger bench. The questions framed on Monday included whether the test evolved in that judgment lays down the correct law; whether the un-notified 1982 amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act or the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, has any bearing on the definition; and whether social welfare activities undertaken by government departments can be construed as industrial activities under the Act. Describing it as the first matter referred to a nine-judge bench in the court's history, CJI Kant said that the hearing in the "industry" case would conclude within two days. The outcome in this case could have wide implications for labour rights and public administration. A narrower definition of "industry" would reduce the range of organisations subject to industrial dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting protections available to employees in educational, charitable or quasi-governmental bodies. Conversely, reaffirming the expansive interpretation...