Constitutional Morality versus Religious Autonomy: The Sabarimala Case.

Introduction

The Sabarimala case remains unresolved at the Supreme Court after the landmark 28 September 2018 judgment (5‑judge bench) in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. Kerala that struck down the ban on women aged 10–50 entering the Sabarimala Temple[1][2]. In Nov 2019, a 3:2 majority of a 5‑judge bench referred the issue to a larger (Constitution) bench[3]. A nine‑judge Constitution Bench (led by CJI Surya Kant) is currently hearing (April–May 2026) a Presidential reference on gender discrimination in religious practices, including Sabarimala[4][5]. Meanwhile, rules effectively remain in limbo: Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Temple-Entry Rules was struck down, but no new policy has been implemented. The Kerala High Court (June 2024) has declined to allow minor girls entry, noting the appeal pending before the larger bench[6]. The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the state have maintained they will follow court orders (noting SC’s verdict is not stayed) but have indicated no active effort to change the status quo[7][8]. Police deployed large forces during the 2018–19 protests (approximately 1,400 arrests in Oct 2018) to enforce law and order[9]. Political and social reactions have been mixed: Hindu traditionalist groups (e.g., Ayyappa Dharma Sena) fiercely opposed women’s entry, while women’s rights activists and some political parties (Congress, Left) defended gender equality. In Kerala politics, BJP and UDF have repeatedly accused the ruling LDF of “hurting devotees’ sentiments” when implementing the verdict[10][11].

Legally, the case hinges on the interplay of Articles 25 and 26 (religious freedom and denominational rights) and Article 14 (equality). The 2018 verdict held that Sabarimala is a public Hindu temple and barred customs were not an essential religious practice – the temple’s deity’s celibacy argument failed. The Court held Article 25(1) (“freedom of religion to all persons”) includes women[12], and that Rule 3(b) violated Hindu women’s Article 25(1) rights by “denud[ing] them of their right to worship”[13]. The larger bench is now examining whether secular courts can override religious customs, whether denominational autonomy (Art. 26) can justify gender exclusions, and related constitutional issues[5][14].

With review petitions still pending and the reference hearing ongoing, key questions remain unanswered. The likely next steps include the nine-judge Bench’s ruling on the reference (possibly in late 2026) and the fate of pending review/curative petitions (unspecified). Any final judgment will have major implications for temple administration and gender rights. Unresolved gaps include the lack of formal entry guidelines post-verdict and whether any legislation or Board rules may be introduced.

Supreme Court and High Court Orders

• 2018 (SC, 5-judge bench) – Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. Kerala (27/373/2006). The Court (Misra CJI, 4:1 majority) held that Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places (Entry Authorization) Rules, 1965 (barring women 10–50), violated Article 25(1) and equality[1][12]. Crucially, the Court found Sabarimala to be a public religious endowment (open to all Hindus) and that Ayyappa devotees “do not constitute a separate religious denomination”[15][16]. It held Article 25(1)’s “all persons” language explicitly includes women[12][17]. The exclusionary practice was not an essential religious practice and “denudes [women] of their right to worship”[13]. Rule 3(b) was declared unconstitutional.
• 2019 (SC review, 5-judge bench) – On 14 Nov 2019, a review bench (Gogoi CJI) by a 3:2 majority referred broad questions to a larger bench[3]. The majority held that revisiting the matter might affect other religious practices. Dissenters (Nariman, Chandrachud JJ) argued referral was beyond the scope of review (they would have dismissed the petitions).
• 2020 (SC Constitution Bench, 9-judge) – Hearing began 13 Jan 2020 to determine if the review bench had power to refer (Civil Reference). On 10 Feb 2020, the nine-judge Bench upheld the referral (issued orders), and on 11 May 2020, it issued a detailed judgment upholding maintainability[18].
• Kerala HC (2024) – Snigdha Sreenath (Minor) v. TDB (WP(C). No. unspecified of 2024). On 11 June 2024, a Division Bench (Narendran & Menon JJ) dismissed a 10-year-old girl’s plea for permission to enter Sabarimala during Mandala season, noting that the issue of women’s entry is pending before a larger SC bench[6][19]. The Court cited the ongoing Supreme Court review/reference as a bar to adjudicating the case.
• Pending before SC (2026) – A Constitution Bench of nine judges (CJI Surya Kant et al.) is hearing a Presidential reference on “discrimination against women in religious places”[4][5]. The hearing began on 7 Apr 2026[4] and has continued through May 2026 (as of this writing). Solicitor General T. Mehta (for Centre) urged upholding the Sabarimala restriction as a matter of religious faith and denominational autonomy[20]. TDB’s counsel argued (Apr 15, 2026) that courts “cannot sit in judgment in matters of religious belief”[21]. Several interim orders or stay applications have not altered the status quo; the original 2018 judgment was never stayed, so technically remains in effect.

Current Entry Rules

Legally, after the 2018 verdict, Rule 3(b) was invalidated. In principle, women of all ages are allowed. However, no new uniform policy has been issued. The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) has indicated it will follow court orders but has not proactively enabled entry. TDB officials stated (Nov 2019) they “will not push for women’s entry this time round” and hope the government and police will discourage entry pending final SC outcome[22][8]. The Kerala government likewise has largely maintained the status quo. In enforcing law and order, authorities have generally followed a cautious approach: e.g. during the 2019–20 pilgrimage season, police sometimes escorted women who attempted entry (as mandated by SC) but also detained protesters.

After the 2018 judgment, the state informed SC that it would implement the verdict (and even increased security deployments for Mandala season). But in practice, repeated attempts by women (or minors) have been met by objections or blockage by protesters, and police have walked a tightrope between SC mandates and public order. For now, no official ban exists, but entry remains contentious and often limited by local resistance. The Kerala High Court has effectively paused any expansion of entry rights (e.g. by refusing the 10-year-old’s plea due to the higher court’s pending review[6]). In summary, “in law all women may enter” (per SC) but “in practice the entry rule is effectively the same as before until SC decides” (TDB’s position)[7][8].

Review Petitions and Appeals

Over 50 review petitions on the 2018 judgment were filed (by Kerala and Ayyappa devotees)[23]. These reviews were not decided on merits; instead, SC (2019) referred the core issues to a larger bench[3]. The pending matters include:

• Review petitions of IYLA v. Kerala (names like Kantararu Rajeevaru v. IYLA, etc.), which are effectively subsumed under the current reference. The larger bench hearing (2026) will address all open issues in those petitions.
• Curative petitions/other appeals: None specifically reported. In general, curative petitions can be filed after final judgment, but since the main judgment is under review/reference, no curative petition has been separately noted. Pending proceedings are via the reference mechanism.
• High Court writs: The Snigdha case (June 2024) was dismissed. Other individual petitions (e.g. foreign citizen Christians in 2019, or others) have been similarly declined or withdrawn, citing pending SC review. No definitive state-level rules or legislation is yet challenged aside from these petitions.

In essence, the litigation front remains open until the 9‑judge Bench decides the framed questions. Exact petition numbers are often “unspecified” in media reports; SC docket lists (e.g. [20]) list numerous RPs and IAs still pending.

Government & Devaswom Board Actions

• TDB Statements (2019–2026): The Board’s stance has been cautious. In Nov 2019, TDB sources said they “will not take a public stance in favour of maintaining the status quo” only to avoid contempt (since SC didn’t stay its order)[7]. Their officials explicitly said the Board would seek legal opinion and not rush implementation[24]. At hearings (April 2026), TDB counsel argued faith matters fall outside court purview[21]. The TDB has not issued any new entry rules; it continues to administer the temple under existing laws, pending judicial outcome.
• Kerala Government: After 2018, the LDF government stated it would abide by the SC verdict. CM Pinarayi Vijayan said police must implement it (citing duty to protect all worshippers)[25]. In practice, police were instructed to ensure law and order; the government deployed extra security (5000 additional police and CCTV) for the 2018–19 Mandala season[26]. Post-verdict, the state has alternated between pro-implementation (during 2019 entry attempts) and restraint when protests flared. Ahead of elections, government ministers defended the verdict as upholding constitutional values. No new law or rule has been enacted; Kerala’s Legislature was reported (2019) as not inclined to amend anything amid legal proceedings.
• Police/Administration: To enforce order, Kerala Police took strong measures in 2018. They released photographs of ~210 suspects and later arrested around 1,400 people involved in anti-entry protests[9]. Special teams were formed to identify agitators[27]. During the pilgrim season, thousands of officers were posted around Sabarimala. When women devotees entered in Jan 2019 under SC escort, police fired tear gas at protestors in remote areas[28]. The force used a mix of protection (escorting petitioners to temple) and crackdown (arrests of protesters). The TDB also works with police on scheduling pilgrimage timings and controlling crowds, but has not directly intervened on entry policy. In sum, law enforcement has largely upheld public order while attempting to balance court mandates: for example, denying entry at roadblocks when chaos loomed, or allowing brief darshan followed by purification rites.

Major Reactions

• Hindu Devotee Organizations: Traditionalists and temple groups have been vociferously opposed. The Ayyappa Dharma Sena (led by Rahul Easwar) threatened violence and temple closure if women entered[29]. After the SC verdict, right-wing Hindu outfits called hartals and road blocks. Nair Service Society (NSS) leader Sukumaran Nair demanded reversal of the verdict and new elections in 2021[30]. A BJP spokesperson likened the ruling government’s action to an “act of demon”[11]. Many local devotees see the ban as protecting the celibate deity’s purity; opposing voices say the judgement ‘hurts devotees’ sentiments’. (A senior TDB official hinted in 2019 that police should “dissuade” women from entering[8], reflecting sensitivity to these groups’ concerns.)
• Political Parties: The issue has split Kerala’s politics. The BJP and UDF (Congress) have repeatedly attacked the LDF government for “hurriedly” implementing the verdict[31]. During the 2021 elections, Congress leaders warned of Lord Ayyappa’s “wrath” against the ruling Left[32]. BJP leaders demanded the government withdraw affidavits defending the verdict and promised to “protect devotees’ faith” if elected[33][34]. The Left (CPM-led LDF) and allies initially celebrated gender justice but later emphasized public order. Some LDF ministers even called the political exploitation of Sabarimala “unconstitutional”[35].
• Women’s and Civil Rights Groups: Feminist and secular activists hailed the 2018 ruling as a victory. On 1 Jan 2019, about 5 million women in Kerala formed a 600-km human chain for gender equality[36]. Groups like the Christian-majority Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council or leftist outfits also supported entry rights. Legal activists (e.g. Indira Jaising) have appeared in court on behalf of women petitioners. Intervenors in the SC hearings have included LGBT and minority rights groups linking Sabarimala to broader equality issues.
• Public at Large: Public sentiment remains divided. Mass protests by devotees occurred in Kerala and among Malayalis elsewhere (political parties like BJP and certain Congress factions organized rallies). Meanwhile, many urban and progressive Keralites view the ban as discriminatory. The intense media debate (sometimes communalized) has kept Sabarimala as a high-profile flashpoint of faith vs. equality politics.

Legal Analysis: Key Questions

The core legal issues center on constitutional law and religious practice:

• Articles 25 vs. 26: Article 25(1) guarantees “all persons” the right to freedom of religion; Article 26 protects the rights of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs. Ayyappa devotees claimed a denomination’s right (via Article 26) to restrict entry for their deity’s celibate nature. The Court rejected this: it held Ayyappa worshippers are Hindus, not a distinct sect[16]. Thus Article 26 did not apply to bar women. A critical question for the 9‑judge bench is how far Article 26 can protect customs of a religion – and whether such rights must yield to constitutional morality and non-discrimination[5].
• Equality and Secularism (Article 14 and 25): The exclusion discriminated on gender. The majority in 2018 held it violated Article 25(1) and Article 14 (right to equality) by arbitrarily singling out women of reproductive age. They applied the Narhari Shastri principle that public Hindu temples are open to all Hindus[37]. They stressed that Article 25 uses “all persons” to include women[12], and that any gender-based practice must meet a high test of being an “essential religious practice,” which this was not[13]. Dissent (Justice Malhotra) upheld the tradition as protected by Article 26 and cultural rights.
• Precedent Cases: The majority cited Shirur Mutt (1954) and Devaru (1958) to define “religious denomination” and essential practice. They also followed Narhari Shastri v. Badrinath (1952) that held temple entry is a legal right of Hindus, subject only to reasonable restrictions. Cases like Ananda Marg and Tikarayats on essentiality were invoked to conclude the age ban was not integral. The judgment noted Durgah Committee v. Syed Hassan Badruddin (1962) which allowed gender-neutral restrictions for public order, clarifying that the state’s reform authority under Article 25(2)(b) allows reforming discriminatory practices[38].
• Implications for Temple Administration: A key holding was that Rule 3(b) was ultra vires the governing Act (as it violated fundamental rights)[39]. Post-2018, the law empowers the state/Board to regulate administration under the 1965 Act, but the Court held that role does not override constitutional rights[40][12]. The TDB (as state-delegated management) cannot deny rights given by the Constitution. How this balances against claims of “essential religious practice” or “denominational autonomy” is central to ongoing debate. The final outcome may redefine to what extent temple customs can be judicially reviewed.
• Gender Rights: Sabarimala is often cited alongside other gender entry cases (e.g. women praying in mosques or fire temples). The larger bench’s outcome may set precedent: if it upholds the 2018 rule, it will reinforce a broad constitutional principle against sex discrimination in religion. If it curtails judicial review, it may allow more exceptions. Already, by reiterating that constitutional “morality” may constrain customs, the Supreme Court signaled it will scrutinize religious tradition for compliance with fundamental rights[5].

Timeline of Key Events (2018–Present)

Time Line 
   

title Sabarimala Case Timeline (2018–2026)
    2018-09-28 : SC (5-judge) lifts ban on women 10–50[1]; Rule 3(b) struck down.
    2018-10-25 : Kerala Police crack down: 210 protest suspects identified, ~1,400 arrests; extra   5,000 cops deployed[27][9].
    2019-01-02 : First women devotees (40s) enter Sabarimala; protests and human chain (5.5M women) follow[28][36].
    2019-11-14 : SC (Gogoi CJI) review bench (3:2) **refers** the case to a larger bench[3].
    2020-01-13 : Nine-judge Constitution Bench (Bobde CJI) starts hearing reference[45].
    2020-05-11 : SC publishes detailed judgment upholding maintainability of reference[18].
    2024-06-11 : Kerala HC dismisses minor girl’s petition (Snigdha Sreenath v. TDB) citing pending SC reference[6].
    2026-04-07 : Supreme Court (9-judge) commences reference hearing; Centre supports ban[20].
    2026-05-13 : Hearing enters final stage; bench discusses Article 25 vs. Article 26[43][5].

Analysis & Next Steps

The Supreme Court’s impending decision will answer pivotal questions on religion and gender. It must balance equality rights against religious autonomy. A ruling favoring the 2018 precedent would reinforce that personal law or temple custom cannot discriminate by gender. Conversely, a ruling narrowing judicial review of religious practice could allow more exceptions to fundamental rights in the name of faith. The bench’s questions (e.g. scope of Article 25, interplay with Article 26, meaning of “morality”, outsider standing)[5][14] suggest it may craft broad doctrine on constitutional morality and the state’s power to reform religion.

Implications include how future temple practices are regulated. The TDB and government will have to act on the verdict – either by formally allowing all women in or, if restrictions are upheld, by clearly defining entry rules under law. Gender rights advocates aim to use the decision to promote equality in other contexts (e.g. mosques, Agiari).

Unresolved Gaps:

No legislative or formal new rule has been promulgated to supersede the defunct Rule 3(b). Exact numbers of pending petitions are unclear from public sources. The precise content of the Presidential reference questions and any reserve bench opinions are not yet published.

In summary, until the Supreme Court renders a final judgment on the reference (likely in late 2026), Sabarimala’s entry rules remain stuck in judicial limbo. The Board and state await instructions. Practically, women of all ages may claim entry rights, but intense local resistance and pending litigation mean enforcement will depend on future court directions or policy changes.

Sources:

SC judgments and orders[16][13][19]; government and TDB statements[22][21]; major news reports[28][9][20][11]. Further details in cited primary documents.

[1] [3] [18] [23] [41] [45] Sabarimala Reference | Day 9: Petitioners wrap up amid debate on entry and religious autonomy – Supreme Court Observer

https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sabarimala-reference-day-9-nine-judge-bench/

[2] [43] [44] Hinduism way of life, not mandatory to go to temple to prove belief: SC | India News – Business Standard

https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/hinduism-way-of-life-not-mandatory-to-go-to-temple-to-prove-belief-sc-126051300517_1.html

[4] [5] [14] [20] Supreme Court Deliberates Discrimination Against Women in Religious Places, ETGovernment

https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/governance/supreme-court-deliberates-discrimination-against-women-in-religious-places/130079578

[6] [19] 10 year old girl’s plea for Sabarimala entry dismissed by Kerala High Court | CJP

https://cjp.org.in/10-year-old-girls-plea-for-sabarimala-entry-dismissed-by-kerala-high-court/

[7] [8] [22] [24] Travancore Devaswom Board unlikely to bat for women’s entry in Sabarimala

https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2019/Nov/14/travancore-devaswom-board-unlikely-to-bat-for-womens-entry-in-sabarimala-2061878.html

[9] Kerala Police arrest 1,400 for Sabarimala violence | India News – The Indian Express

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kerala-1400-arrested-in-connection-with-sabarimala-temple-protests-5418682/

[10] [11] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Kerala Election: Left, Congress, BJP Have Heated Debate Over Sabarimala Even As Kerala Votes Today

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kerala-election-left-congress-bjp-have-heated-debate-over-sabarimala-even-as-kerala-votes-today-2407499

[12] [13] [16] [17] [37] [40] Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State Of Kerala on 28 September, 2018

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163639357/

[15] [38] [39] scobserver.in

https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf

[21] Courts can’t sit in judgement in matters of religious belief of denomination: TDB to Supreme Court – The Economic Times

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/courts-cant-sit-in-judgement-in-matters-of-religious-belief-of-denomination-tdb-to-supreme-court/articleshow/130276196.cms?from=mdr

[25] [28] [36] 2 Women Entered a Hindu Temple in India, Breaking a Decades-Long Ban – Business Insider

https://www.businessinsider.com/2-women-entered-a-hindu-in-india-breaking-a-decades-long-ban-2019-1

[26] [27] [29] Sabarimala protests: Kerala Police releases photos of 200-odd suspects | India News – The Indian Express

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kerala-police-releases-photos-of-suspects-in-sabarimala-protests-5418422/

[42] Sabarimala reference hearing: Live updates from Supreme Court – Day 11

https://www.barandbench.com/news/sabarimala-reference-hearing-live-updates-from-supreme-court-day-11