Review of the 2018 Sabarimala Verdict

Q: With reference to the Sabarimala Temple entry case, consider the following statements. Which of the statements given above are correct?

Correct answer: Option 1, Option 2. Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect because the dissent was delivered by Justice Indu Malhotra, while Justice D.Y. Chandrachud was part of the majority. Statement 4 is incorrect because the 1991 Kerala High Court judgment upheld the restriction on women's entry.

The Supreme Court of India is set to hear review petitions concerning its landmark 2018 judgment on women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple. Scheduled for April 2026 before a nine-judge Constitution Bench, this issue highlights the complex intersection of religious freedom, gender equality, and constitutional morality.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India is preparing to hear review petitions regarding its landmark 2018 judgment on women’s entry into the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. This legal battle sits directly at the intersection of religious freedom, gender equality, and constitutional morality. The review proceedings, scheduled to commence in April 2026 before a nine-judge Constitution Bench, mark a pivotal constitutional moment that will have vast implications for how India balances fundamental rights against deeply rooted religious traditions.

Context & Background

The Sabarimala Temple is one of South India's most prominent pilgrimage sites, located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve of Kerala. Dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, the pilgrimage requires a strict 41-day period of austerity. Because the deity is traditionally revered as celibate, women between the ages of 10 and 50 were historically barred from entering. This practice was legally validated in 1991 by the Kerala High Court, which ruled it an established custom that did not violate the Constitution. The legal landscape shifted dramatically in 2006 when the Indian Young Lawyers Association petitioned the Supreme Court, sparking a decades-long constitutional debate.

Key Points

•The 2018 Majority Opinion (4:1): The Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting women between the ages of 10 and 50 infringed on their fundamental rights. Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to exclusive protections.
•Violation of Equality and Dignity: The Court found the practice discriminatory under Article 15. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that constitutional prohibition of untouchability extends to social exclusion based on ritual purity.
•Rule Struck Down: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, which enabled the restriction, was declared unconstitutional.
•The Dissenting Opinion: Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, emphasizing judicial restraint in matters of faith. She argued courts shouldn't adjudicate religious practices unless they are manifestly oppressive (like Sati) and that rationality cannot be strictly applied to belief systems.

Timeline of the Sabarimala Legal Case

Year	Event / Case	Outcome / Development
1991	S. Mahendran v. The Secretary	Kerala High Court upheld the exclusion of women, reasoning it constituted an established religious custom and did not infringe on Articles 14 or 25.
2006	Indian Young Lawyers Association Petition	Challenged the restriction in the Supreme Court. The State of Kerala revised its stance to support women's access.
2018	Supreme Court Landmark Verdict	A 4:1 majority held the practice barring women of menstruating age unconstitutional, citing violations of Articles 14 and 15.
2019-2026	Review Petitions	Referred to a larger bench in 2019 (Kantaru Rajeevaru v. IYLA). A nine-judge bench will begin hearings in April 2026.

Key Perspectives: Arguments For and Against Women's Entry

Theme	Arguments Against Women's Entry	Arguments Supporting Women's Entry
Constitutional Guarantee	Protection under Article 26 (religious denomination autonomy).	Equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15; Freedom of religion for all.
Tradition & Custom	Integral to the shrine's religious character and the celibate nature of the deity.	Religious practices must evolve with constitutional morality and gender justice.
Statutory Context	Supported by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965.	Supported by Section 4 of the 1965 Act prohibiting sectional discrimination.
Social Implications	41-day preparatory observance is physically difficult for menstruating women.	Exclusion is a form of untouchability (Article 17) and enforces menstrual stigma.

Related Entities

Travancore Devaswom Board
Organization

The administrative body responsible for the management of the Sabarimala Temple, which argued that the restriction was an integral religious custom.

Indian Young Lawyers Association
Organization

The petitioner group that approached the Supreme Court in 2006 to challenge the restriction on women's entry to the temple.

Lord Ayyappa
Deity

The presiding deity of the Sabarimala shrine, venerated as a celibate deity, which historically formed the basis for the age-specific exclusion of women.

Impact & Significance

•Transformative Constitutionalism: The 2018 verdict was hailed as a major victory for gender justice, challenging patriarchal traditions and the stigma surrounding menstruation in religious spaces.
•Public Response: The ruling triggered massive protests by sections of devotees who viewed it as judicial overreach into deeply held faith, causing severe implementation hurdles for the Kerala government.
•Precedential Value: The ultimate resolution by the nine-judge bench will have ripple effects on other religious practices across India that face similar constitutional challenges regarding gender discrimination.

Challenges & Criticism

•Implementation Difficulties: Enforcing the 2018 verdict on the ground proved highly volatile, requiring heavy security and resulting in widespread civil unrest in Kerala.
•Judicial Overreach Accusations: Critics argue that applying secular constitutional principles of rationality to matters of faith undermines religious pluralism and autonomy.
•Socio-Political Polarization: The issue rapidly escalated from a legal dispute to a highly polarized political controversy, complicating the separation of law, politics, and religion.

Future Outlook

•Defining Essential Religious Practices: The 2026 hearings will likely shape future jurisprudence on the 'Essential Religious Practices' test and clarify doctrinal inconsistencies.
•Balancing Equality and Autonomy: The nine-judge bench has the opportunity to articulate a principled framework for balancing the right to equality (Article 14) with religious autonomy (Article 26).
•Judicial Intervention Limits: The verdict will define the broader doctrinal implications for how much courts can or should intervene in religious customs and democratic processes.

UPSC Relevance

UPSC

• GS-2 (Polity & Governance): Structure, organization, and functioning of the Judiciary; Significant Supreme Court Judgments.
• GS-2 (Fundamental Rights): Conflict between Right to Equality (Art. 14, 15) and Right to Freedom of Religion (Art. 25, 26).
• Essay Topics: Constitutional Morality vs. Religious Traditions; Gender Justice in India.

Sample Questions

Prelims

With reference to the Sabarimala Temple entry case, consider the following statements. Which of the statements given above are correct?

1. Article 26 of the Constitution guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

2. In the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, the Supreme Court struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.

3. The dissenting judgment in the 2018 verdict was delivered by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

4. The 1991 Kerala High Court judgment declared the exclusion of women from Sabarimala as unconstitutional.

Answer: Option 1, Option 2

Explanation: Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect because the dissent was delivered by Justice Indu Malhotra, while Justice D.Y. Chandrachud was part of the majority. Statement 4 is incorrect because the 1991 Kerala High Court judgment upheld the restriction on women's entry.

Mains

The Sabarimala verdict brings to the forefront the tension between constitutional morality and freedom of religion. Analyze the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment in this context and discuss the significance of the upcoming review proceedings.

Introduction: Introduce the Sabarimala case as a landmark dispute over women's entry into the shrine. Briefly mention the 2018 Supreme Court verdict (4:1) and the referral to a nine-judge Constitution Bench for review in 2026.

Body:

• The Conflict of Rights: Discuss the tension between Article 14/15 (equality and non-discrimination) and Article 25/26 (freedom to manage religious affairs). Explain how the temple claimed denominational status.

• 2018 Majority vs. Dissent: Outline the majority's view that the practice was unconstitutional and violated dignity, contrasted with Justice Indu Malhotra's dissent advocating for judicial restraint in matters of faith unless inherently pernicious.

• Significance of the Review: The 2026 nine-judge bench will establish clearer doctrinal boundaries regarding the 'essential religious practices' test and how state institutions approach transformative constitutionalism.

Conclusion: Conclude by noting that the final outcome will create a lasting precedent on how a pluralistic democracy reconciles the dynamic nature of constitutional gender justice with the preservation of diverse religious traditions.