Introduction To The Sabarimala Case

The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala stands out as one of the most contentious constitutional debates in modern Indian legal history. It sits at the crossroads of religion, gender equality, and fundamental rights — raising profound questions about the role of the judiciary in matters of faith, the limits of religious autonomy, and the constitutional guarantee of equality for all citizens regardless of sex or biological condition.

Historical And Religious Context

The Sabarimala Temple, situated atop the Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala and managed by the Travancore Devasom Board, has traditionally upheld a practice barring women of menstruating age — broadly defined as those between 10 and 50 years — from entering the temple premises.

This restriction rests on the religious belief that the presence of menstruating women would defile the sanctity of the temple and compromise the purity attributed to its presiding deity, Lord Ayyappa.

Legal Basis Of The Restriction

The legal basis for this prohibition is found in Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which permits the exclusion of women from temples where the deity’s identity so requires.

The Devasom Board has consistently argued that Lord Ayyappa is revered as a Naishtika Brahmachari (a permanent celibate) and that permitting women of reproductive age to enter the shrine would disrupt centuries-old traditions and the essential character of worship.

This tradition has persisted across generations and commands strong devotional sentiment among millions of Ayyappa devotees.

Key Facts About The Sabarimala Temple Practice

Aspect	Details
Temple Name	Sabarimala Temple
Location	Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala
Managing Authority	Travancore Devasom Board
Restricted Age Group	Women between 10 and 50 years
Religious Basis	Lord Ayyappa revered as a Naishtika Brahmachari
Legal Provision	Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965

Legal Journey Of The Sabarimala Issue

S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devasom Board (1991)

The legal history of the Sabarimala restriction dates to 1991, when the Kerala High Court, in S. Mahendran v. the Secretary, Travancore Devasom Board, examined whether the exclusionary practice violated constitutional rights relating to equality and religious freedom.

The High Court upheld the ban, emphasising the centrality of the deity’s identity and the religious character of the restriction.

This ruling provided the legal foundation that sustained the prohibition for more than two decades.

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala & Others (2006)

In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association – a body comprising five women lawyers – filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutionality of the temple’s exclusionary practice.

The petitioners contended that the tradition violated the following:

• Article 14 — Right to Equality before Law;
• Article 15 — Prohibition of Discrimination on grounds of sex;
• Article 25 — Right to Freedom of Religion.

The petitioners argued that the practice undermined women’s dignity and their constitutional right to participate equally in religious life.

The matter underwent prolonged deliberations over the subsequent years before reaching the Supreme Court Constitution Bench.

Constitutional Issues Raised

Constitutional Provision	Issue Raised
Article 14	Whether the restriction violated equality before law
Article 15	Whether the exclusion amounted to discrimination based on sex
Article 25	Whether women had an equal right to religious freedom and worship

Core Constitutional Debate

The Sabarimala case raised several significant constitutional and religious questions, including:

• Whether religious customs can override fundamental rights;
• Whether exclusion based on biological conditions amounts to discrimination;
• The extent of judicial intervention in matters of faith;
• The balance between religious autonomy and constitutional morality.

III. The Landmark Judgment Of 2018

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, [2019] 11 SCC 1, by a 4:1 majority. The court held that the exclusion of women based on biological characteristics — specifically menstruation — was unconstitutional and that the restriction infringed upon the right to equality under Article 14 and the freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

Key Highlights Of The Verdict

Aspect	Details
Case Name	Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
Bench Strength	Five-Judge Constitution Bench
Year of Judgement	2018
Majority Ratio	4:1
Core Constitutional Issues	Article 14, Article 17, Article 25, and Article 26
Main Finding	Exclusion of women based on menstruation was held unconstitutional

Majority Opinion — Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Justice Chandrachud, writing as part of the majority, articulated that any religious practice or custom that undermines a woman’s dignity by reason of menstruation is fundamentally unconstitutional.

He held that the right against untouchability under Article 17 is not confined to caste-based discrimination but encompasses all forms of exclusion rooted in notions of purity and pollution.

Therefore, treating menstruation as a source of impurity — and using it as a ground to deny women entry — violates their dignity and personal autonomy.

He further declared Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Rules to be unconstitutional.

Constitutional Principles Emphasized By The Majority

• Equality under Article 14
• Dignity and personal autonomy of women
• Freedom of religion under Article 25
• Broad interpretation of Article 17
• Rejection of exclusion based on notions of purity and pollution

Dissenting Opinion — Justice Indu Malhotra

Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole dissenting voice and the only woman on the bench, offered a substantially different perspective.

She maintained that courts ought not to interfere in matters of faith and should refrain from adjudicating on the rationality or validity of religious practices.

Justice Malhotra argued that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala constitute a religious denomination with distinct customs and usages and are therefore entitled to the constitutional protection afforded by Article 26 — the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

She contended that the belief in Lord Ayyappa’s identity as Naishtika Brahmachari is central to the temple’s essential religious practice and that permitting women of menstruating age to enter would disturb the very character of worship.

In Justice Malhotra’s view, judicial intervention in religious matters should be reserved for extreme cases of practices that are manifestly harmful, oppressive, or analogous to recognised social evils such as Sati.

She also raised important questions about the standing of non-devotees to file PILs challenging entrenched religious customs – a concern that remains alive in the ongoing proceedings.

Key Points In The Dissent

• Courts should avoid interference in matters of faith
• Religious practices should not be tested for rationality by courts
• Sabarimala devotees constitute a protected religious denomination
• Article 26 protects denominational autonomy
• Essential religious practices deserve constitutional protection
• Judicial review should apply only in cases of extreme social harm

Constitutional Debate And Legacy

The 2018 Sabarimala judgement triggered one of the most significant constitutional debates in modern India. The majority opinion emphasised gender equality, dignity, and constitutional morality, while the dissent stressed judicial restraint and protection of religious autonomy.

The ruling continues to influence discussions on the relationship between fundamental rights, essential religious practices, and the scope of judicial review under the Constitution of India.

Review Petitions and the 2026 Proceedings

Following the 2018 judgement, a wave of review petitions was filed before the Supreme Court, leading to the constitution of a nine-judge bench to consider broader constitutional questions. The matter, now styled as Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, RP(C) No. 3358/2018, is presently being heard by a nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant.

The bench is tasked with examining critical constitutional questions, including:

• The scope and definition of ‘Essential Religious Practices’ under Articles 25 and 26;
• Whether fundamental religious practices protected under Article 25 can be overridden by the equality guarantee in Article 14;
• Whether the exclusion of women on grounds of menstruation constitutes a form of untouchability prohibited by Article 17;
• The rights of religious denominations under Article 26 to manage their own affairs, and the interplay of this right with individual fundamental rights.

As of 2026, the matter remains pending before the Supreme Court, rendering the Sabarimala question one of the most consequential unresolved constitutional issues in contemporary India.

Core Constitutional Issues

The Sabarimala case crystallises a fundamental tension in Indian constitutional law: the conflict between collective religious rights and individual fundamental rights. The following constitutional provisions are at the heart of the dispute:

Constitutional Provision	Key Issue in the Sabarimala Case
Article 14 (Right to Equality)	Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law. The question is whether the exclusion of women based on biological characteristics constitutes impermissible discrimination.
Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination)	Prohibits discrimination by the state on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability)	Whether the bar on menstruating women amounts to a form of untouchability rooted in notions of purity and impurity.
Article 25 (Freedom of Religion)	Grants individuals the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
Article 26 (Rights of Religious Denominations)	Confers on every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Whether Ayyappa devotees constitute a separate denomination with protected rights is a key threshold question.

Key Constitutional Questions Before the Supreme Court

• Interpretation of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine
• Balance between equality rights and freedom of religion;
• Scope of protection available to religious denominations;
• Constitutional validity of exclusionary temple practices;
• Interaction between Articles 14, 15, 17, 25, and 26 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis And Commentary

The Sabarimala dispute reveals the complexity of applying universal constitutional principles to deeply embedded religious traditions. Several observations merit consideration:

The Austerity Argument

Devotees undertaking the Sabarimala pilgrimage are required to observe 41 days of rigorous austerity — encompassing celibacy, daily ritual prayers, abstinence from non-vegetarian food and intoxicants, and sustained physical endurance.

• Celibacy and spiritual discipline
• Daily ritual prayers
• Abstinence from non-vegetarian food and intoxicants
• Sustained physical endurance

Proponents of the restriction argue, among other things, that menstruating women may face practical difficulties in maintaining these observances during their monthly cycle and that this difficulty is a legitimate basis for the traditional age-based limitation.

This argument, however, conflates personal capability with constitutional disability — a distinction that the majority in 2018 firmly rejected.

The Essential Religious Practice Doctrine

Indian constitutional jurisprudence has developed the ‘Essential Religious Practices’ (ERP) test to determine which religious practices enjoy constitutional protection.

Doctrine	Purpose	Key Question
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test	Determines constitutional protection for religious practices	Is the practice fundamental to the religion?

A practice is protected only if it is fundamental to the religion and its absence would alter the nature of the religion itself.

Whether the exclusion of women forms an essential practice of Ayyappa worship — rather than a peripheral custom — remains the central factual and doctrinal dispute before the nine-judge bench.

Standing And PIL Jurisdiction

Justice Malhotra’s concern about the standing of non-devotees to file PILs against religious practices raises an important procedural question.

If the petitioners themselves do not profess devotion to Lord Ayyappa or seek to enter Sabarimala as worshippers, the legitimacy of their challenge to the temple’s internal customs merits careful judicial scrutiny.

The nine-judge bench is expected to address this question as part of its broader examination.

Judicial Restraint Vs Constitutional Supremacy

The case ultimately asks, ‘How far should the judiciary go in subjecting religious practices to constitutional scrutiny?’

Viewpoint	Position
Justice Malhotra’s Dissent	Advocates judicial restraint and deference to faith communities
Majority View	Insists that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality rooted in custom

The nine-judge bench’s resolution of this tension will have far-reaching implications for the relationship between religion and the state in India.

VII. Conclusion

The Sabarimala case remains one of the defining legal controversies of contemporary India — an ongoing constitutional dialogue between tradition and transformation, between collective religious identity and individual dignity.

The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court carries the weight of charting India’s constitutional course on questions that touch the lives of millions.

A final ruling is still awaited. Until it arrives, Sabarimala will continue to stand as a powerful symbol of the unfinished conversation between India’s ancient religious heritage and its modern constitutional promise.

References

• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, [2019] 11 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India)
• Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, RP(C) No. 3358/2018, Supreme Court of India (proceedings continuing as of 2026)
• S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devasom Board (1991), Kerala High Court
• Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, Rule 3(b)
• Constitution of India — Articles 14, 15, 17, 25, and 26
• SC Observer — Sabarimala Entry Case Tracker
  URL: www.scobserver.in
• Drishti IAS — Supreme Court Allows Entry into Sabarimala Temple
  URL: www.drishtiias.com
• Shankar IAS Parliament — Women’s Entry into Sabarimala Temple
  URL: www.shankeriasparliament.com

Written By: Dr Kairali VS, Vels School of Law, Chennai