Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Ahead of the state Assembly elections, the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front government in Kerala appears to have made a politically convenient reversal on the landmark 2018 Sabarimala verdict which allowed entry of women into Sabarimala temple. According to reports, the state’s standing counsel in the Supreme Court of India has asked to be included alongside review petitioners seeking reconsideration of the 2018 judgment.
Bar and Bench reported that the state is now examining broader questions related to religious rights, freedoms, and the scope of judicial review in such matters.
In 2018, the Supreme Court lifted the traditional ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The verdict triggered widespread protests across Kerala, even as the LDF government at the time maintained that it would implement the court’s order. In January 2019, two women–Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga–entered the temple under police protection.
On April 4, the Supreme Court constituted a nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, to hear the Sabarimala review petitions and related constitutional issues. The hearings commenced on April 7. The bench is expected to examine questions of religious freedom, the outcome of which could have implications for several similar cases.
During the proceedings, the Government of India argued that the restriction on women of menstruating age was rooted in the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa as a Naishtika Brahmachari, rather than notions of ‘impurity’. It contended that allowing unrestricted entry could alter the essential character of the temple’s traditions and affect religious pluralism protected under the Constitution.
The 2018 judgment stemmed from a 2006 petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging the ban. A five-judge bench led by former Chief Justice Dipak Misra delivered a 4:1 majority ruling, with Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, and DY Chandrachud concurring, while Indu Malhotra dissented.
The majority struck down Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Kerala temple entry rules as unconstitutional, holding that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination. It ruled that restricting women’s entry violated principles of equality and constitutional morality.
In her dissent, Justice Indu Malhotra argued that courts should refrain from interfering in matters of deep religious faith unless directly challenged by affected devotees.