Sabarimala Temple Entry Case
Why in News?
The Sabarimala temple entry case is currently in the news because a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, began hearing a major "reference" case on April 7, 2026.
About
- Active Hearings: The Supreme Court hearing arguments from parties supporting and opposing the review of the 2018 judgment. Hearings are scheduled to conclude by April 22, 2026.
- Government Stance: The Union Government recently submitted that a "straitjacket definition" of religious practices would compress the plural nature of Hinduism and that matters of faith should generally be left to the community.
- TDB’s Position: The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which manages the temple, has argued that the entry of women of reproductive age is "antithetical" to the celibate identity of the deity.
- Broader Implications: The court is using this case to set a precedent for other religious issues, such as Muslim women’s entry into mosques and the practice of female genital mutilation in certain communities.
Core Dispute
- The Custom: Traditionally, women aged 10 to 50 were barred from the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
- The Reason: The deity, Lord Ayyappa, is worshipped as a Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate), and the 41-day penance required for the pilgrimage was deemed difficult for menstruating women.
Legal Timeline
- 1991: The Kerala High Court upheld the ban, calling it a justified long-standing custom.
- 2018 Landmark Verdict: A five-judge Supreme Court bench, in a 4:1 majority, struck down the ban, ruling it violated women’s rights to equality (Article 14) and freedom of worship (Article 25).
- 2019 Referral: Following widespread protests, the court referred review petitions to a larger seven-judge bench (later expanded to nine), but kept the 2018 order in effect until a final decision.
The Seven Major Questions (2026 Reference)
The current nine-judge bench is specifically answering seven constitutional questions, including:
- Article 25 vs. 26: The interplay between an individual's right to religion and a denomination’s right to manage its own affairs.
- Constitutional Morality: Whether secular "constitutional morality" should override religious "public morality."
- Essential Practice: Who decides what counts as an "Essential Religious Practice" (ERP)—the court or the religious head?
- PIL Standing: Whether a person not belonging to a specific religion (a "stranger") can challenge its internal practices in court.
Key Arguments in 2026
- For the Ban (Review Petitioners): Argue that the 2018 bench failed to apply the "sampradaya" (tradition) test and that judges should not act as "social reformers".
- Against the Ban: Argue that exclusion based on biological processes like menstruation is a form of "untouchability" (Article 17) and that constitutional rights are supreme.
Download Pdf
