Introduction
The Sabarimala temple entry dispute represents one of the most complex intersections of constitutional law, religious freedom, gender justice, and judicial review in independent India. The Supreme Court’s 2018 decision permitting women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala triggered widespread debate across the country. The matter did not end with that verdict. Following multiple review petitions and constitutional concerns raised thereafter, the Court has decided to re-examine critical aspects of the judgment before a larger Constitution Bench.
The review of the Sabarimala verdict is not merely about temple entry. It concerns deeper constitutional questions — How far can courts intervene in matters of faith? What is the scope of the “essential religious practice” doctrine? How should equality be balanced with religious autonomy?
This article examines the historical background, the 2018 ruling, review developments, constitutional issues, and possible implications in detail.
Historical and Religious Background of Sabarimala
Sabarimala is one of the most prominent Hindu pilgrimage centers in South India. The temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, who is traditionally regarded as a celibate deity (Naishtika Brahmachari). Devotees observe a 41-day period of strict austerity before undertaking the pilgrimage.
For decades, the temple followed a custom that restricted entry of women between approximately 10 and 50 years of age. The restriction was justified by temple authorities and certain devotees on the grounds that women of menstruating age could affect the celibate nature of the deity.
Importantly, the restriction was not a complete ban on women; young girls and elderly women were permitted. However, women of reproductive age were excluded.
Early Legal Developments
The legal dispute over the entry restriction began in the early 1990s. In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld the practice. The Court ruled that the restriction was a long-standing custom and did not violate constitutional provisions. It directed the temple authorities to strictly enforce the ban.
For nearly two decades after this judgment, the issue remained largely dormant at the national level.
The 2018 Supreme Court Judgment
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a historic verdict in the case challenging the entry restriction.
Majority Opinion (4:1)
The majority struck down the ban on women’s entry. The key constitutional grounds were:
1. Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality)
The Court held that excluding women based solely on biological factors amounted to discrimination. The restriction was found to be arbitrary and unconstitutional.
2. Violation of Article 15 (Non-discrimination)
The majority reasoned that the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex. Religious customs cannot override this constitutional mandate.
3. Article 25 – Freedom of Religion
The Court observed that the right to worship is available to all individuals. It ruled that women devotees have the same right to practice religion as men.
4. Essential Religious Practice Doctrine
The Court held that the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice. Therefore, it could not claim constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26.
The Dissenting View
One judge dissented, arguing that matters of deep religious faith should not ordinarily be subjected to judicial rationality tests. According to this view:
- Courts should not determine what constitutes an essential practice unless it clearly violates public order, morality, or health.
- Religious communities must have autonomy in managing their internal affairs.
The dissent highlighted the tension between constitutional morality and religious faith.
Public and Political Reactions
The 2018 judgment led to widespread protests in Kerala and other parts of the country. The reactions were sharply divided:
Supporters of the Verdict
- Women’s rights activists welcomed the judgment as a progressive step toward gender equality.
- Many constitutional scholars saw it as strengthening the principle of non-discrimination.
Opponents of the Verdict
- Several devotees and religious organizations opposed the ruling.
- Protests occurred during the annual pilgrimage season.
- The issue became politically sensitive in Kerala.
The state government initially indicated its willingness to implement the Court’s order, but practical challenges and public resistance complicated enforcement.
Filing of Review Petitions
Following the 2018 verdict, multiple review petitions were filed before the Supreme Court. Petitioners argued that:
- The Court failed to properly consider the denominational character of the temple.
- The essential religious practice test was applied incorrectly.
- Judicial overreach had occurred in religious matters.
In 2019, the Supreme Court kept the review petitions pending and framed broader constitutional questions.
Reference to a Larger Bench
In a significant move, the Supreme Court referred certain issues arising from the Sabarimala judgment to a larger bench (nine judges). This step indicated that the Court considered the matter to involve substantial constitutional interpretation.
The broader issues identified include:
- The scope and application of the essential religious practice doctrine.
- The extent to which courts can interfere in religious customs.
- The balance between equality rights and religious freedom.
- Whether constitutional morality should prevail over religious traditions.
Importantly, the original 2018 judgment was not immediately overturned. It technically remains in operation while the review is considered.
Key Constitutional Questions Involved
1. Essential Religious Practice Doctrine
This doctrine has evolved through multiple Supreme Court judgments. It allows courts to determine whether a particular practice is fundamental to a religion. Only essential practices receive constitutional protection.
Critics argue that courts are not equipped to define religious essentials. Supporters argue that judicial oversight prevents discriminatory customs from being shielded under religion.
The Sabarimala review could redefine how this doctrine operates.
2. Constitutional Morality vs. Popular Morality
The 2018 majority emphasized constitutional morality — meaning values like equality, dignity, and liberty must guide interpretation.
However, opponents argue that constitutional morality should not erase deeply held religious sentiments.
The larger bench may clarify how these competing principles are reconciled.
3. Individual Rights vs. Group Rights
Article 25 protects individual freedom of religion. Article 26 protects rights of religious denominations.
The key issue is whether Sabarimala qualifies as a religious denomination entitled to manage its own affairs, including entry restrictions.
4. Gender Justice and Religious Autonomy
The case tests whether gender-based exclusion can ever be justified under religious freedom.
If the larger bench strengthens equality principles, it could influence similar disputes across religions.
Broader Implications Beyond Sabarimala
The Sabarimala review is significant not just for one temple but for wider jurisprudence. It may affect:
- Entry restrictions in other places of worship.
- Religious practices involving gender roles.
- Future constitutional challenges involving faith-based customs.
The decision could shape how India balances secular constitutional values with religious diversity.
Social Dimensions of the Debate
The controversy highlights deeper societal questions:
- Should faith evolve with changing social values?
- Can religious traditions be insulated from constitutional scrutiny?
- How should a pluralistic society manage competing claims of belief and equality?
The issue remains emotionally charged because it touches upon identity, belief, and tradition.
Possible Outcomes of the Review
The larger bench could take several approaches:
1. Uphold the 2018 Judgment
This would reinforce gender equality and judicial intervention in discriminatory religious practices.
2. Modify the Earlier Ruling
The Court may clarify legal principles without fully reversing the verdict.
3. Overturn the Judgment
If the Court finds that the practice qualifies as an essential religious practice or denominational right, it could restore the restriction.
Each outcome would have major legal and political consequences.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala case represents one of the most significant constitutional debates in contemporary India. It brings into focus fundamental questions about equality, faith, judicial power, and constitutional interpretation.
The review by a larger Constitution Bench will likely shape the future of religious freedom jurisprudence in India. Whether the Court emphasizes constitutional morality, religious autonomy, or a balanced reconciliation of both will determine the direction of Indian constitutional law in matters of faith and gender justice.
The final outcome will not merely resolve a temple entry issue — it will define the contours of the relationship between religion and the Constitution in the world’s largest democracy.
