{"id":20495,"date":"2026-05-28T12:41:55","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T07:11:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=20495"},"modified":"2026-05-28T12:47:18","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T07:17:18","slug":"constitutional-morality-versus-religious-autonomy-the-sabarimala-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/28\/constitutional-morality-versus-religious-autonomy-the-sabarimala-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutional Morality versus Religious Autonomy: The Sabarimala Case."},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Author(s): Arminder Kaur & Aryan Lal students of law at from NIMS University, Jaipur<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Introduction<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The Sabarimala case remains unresolved at the Supreme Court after the landmark 28 September 2018 judgment (5\u2011judge bench) in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. Kerala<\/em> that struck down the ban on women aged 10\u201350 entering the Sabarimala Temple[1]<\/a>[2]<\/a>. In Nov 2019, a 3:2 majority of a 5\u2011judge bench referred the issue to a larger (Constitution) bench[3]<\/a>. A nine\u2011judge Constitution Bench (led by CJI Surya Kant) is currently hearing (April\u2013May 2026) a Presidential reference on gender discrimination in religious practices, including Sabarimala[4]<\/a>[5]<\/a>. 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]<\/a>. The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the state have maintained they will follow court orders (noting SC\u2019s verdict is not stayed) but have indicated no active effort to change the status quo[7]<\/a>[8]<\/a>. Police deployed large forces during the 2018\u201319 protests (approximately 1,400 arrests in Oct 2018) to enforce law and order[9]<\/a>. Political and social reactions have been mixed: Hindu traditionalist groups (e.g., Ayyappa Dharma Sena) fiercely opposed women\u2019s entry, while women\u2019s rights activists and some political parties (Congress, Left) defended gender equality. In Kerala politics, BJP and UDF have repeatedly accused the ruling LDF of \u201churting devotees\u2019 sentiments\u201d when implementing the verdict[10]<\/a>[11]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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<\/em> an essential religious practice \u2013 the temple\u2019s deity\u2019s celibacy argument failed. The Court held Article 25(1) (\u201cfreedom of religion to all persons\u201d) includes women[12]<\/a>, and that Rule 3(b) violated Hindu women\u2019s Article 25(1) rights by \u201cdenud[ing] them of their right to worship\u201d[13]<\/a>. 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]<\/a>[14]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

With review petitions still pending and the reference hearing ongoing, key questions remain unanswered. The likely next steps include the nine-judge Bench\u2019s 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<\/strong> include the lack of formal entry guidelines post-verdict and whether any legislation or Board rules may be introduced.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court and High Court Orders<\/h4>\n