Sabarimala Entry Verdict Under Review: Supreme Court to Revisit 2018 Judgment

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court of India has scheduled hearings from April 7 before a nine-judge Constitution Bench to consider review petitions against its 2018 verdict permitting women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple.

The 2018 ruling had triggered widespread protests during the annual 41-day pilgrimage season and emerged as a politically sensitive issue in Kerala. While the Kerala government has maintained its position supporting women’s entry (as per its 2017 affidavit), the renewed hearings have gained significance amid the backdrop of upcoming Assembly elections.

Sabarimala Temple: Overview and Traditions

Location

The temple is located within the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghats of Kerala and is one of South India’s most prominent pilgrimage centres.

Deity

It is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, believed in Hindu tradition to be the son of Lord Shiva and Mohini (the female avatar of Lord Vishnu).

Unique Religious Practice

Devotees undertake a strict 41-day penance (vratham) before the pilgrimage. The observance includes:

• Celibacy
• Abstinence from certain foods
• Wearing simple attire
• Spiritual discipline and austerity

Belief in Celibacy

Lord Ayyappa is worshipped as a Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate deity).

Customary Entry Restriction

Traditionally, women between the ages of 10 and 50 (considered menstruating age) were restricted from entering the temple, based on the belief that their presence would violate the deity’s celibate character.

1990–91: Kerala High Court Upholds Women’s Entry Ban

The first major legal challenge arose in 1990, when a petition alleged that women of menstruating age were entering the temple contrary to custom.

In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld the ban, ruling that:

• The restriction was based on longstanding custom and usage.
• It did not violate constitutional provisions.
• The Travancore Devaswom Board must strictly enforce the prohibition.

This judgment remained in force for nearly three decades.

Supreme Court Intervention

In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965.

The petition argued that the restriction violated:

• Article 14 (Right to Equality)
• Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex)
• Article 25 (Freedom of religion)
• Article 51A(e) (Fundamental duty to renounce practices derogatory to women)

2018: Landmark 4:1 Constitution Bench Verdict

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, struck down Rule 3(b) and allowed entry of women of all ages.

Key Observations

• Custom cannot override fundamental rights.
• Exclusion based on biological factors is discriminatory.
• The temple did not qualify as a separate religious denomination entitled to exclusive protection under Article 26.

Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, holding that courts should not ordinarily interfere in essential religious practices unless they violate public order, morality, or health.

The verdict triggered widespread protests across Kerala and led to multiple review petitions.

2019: Reference to Larger Bench

Ahead of the 2019 pilgrimage season, the Supreme Court observed that the Sabarimala ruling may have broader implications for other religious practices across faiths.

The Court referred larger constitutional questions to a bench of at least seven judges but did not stay the 2018 judgment.

2020: Review Petitions Held Maintainable

In 2020, a nine-judge bench led by then Chief Justice S.A. Bobde held that the review petitions were maintainable.

The bench framed seven key constitutional questions, including:

• Scope of judicial review in matters of essential religious practices
• Interplay between Articles 25 and 26
• Whether courts can determine theological matters
• Balancing equality with religious freedom

The matter is now scheduled for substantive hearing.

Core Constitutional Debate

The case involves a delicate balance between:

• Equality and non-discrimination (Articles 14 and 15)
• Freedom of religion (Articles 25 and 26)
• Judicial review and secular constitutionalism
• Gender justice and social reform

The review proceedings may redefine how courts interpret “essential religious practices” and the limits of constitutional morality.

Significance

• May reshape jurisprudence on religious freedom and equality
• Clarifies the doctrine of essential religious practices
• Impacts gender rights in places of worship
• Sets precedent for future disputes involving faith and reform
• Carries political and social implications in Kerala and beyond

The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the balance between constitutional values and religious autonomy in India.