Women Into Sabarimala temple: Kerala Govt To Consult Scholars Before Decision
LDF moves away from its earlier stand of supporting the entry of women of all ages
By : DC Correspondent
Update: 2026-03-14 19:04 GMT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The ruling CPM-led LDF Government in Kerala has stopped short of taking a clear stance on the entry of women of a certain age group into the Sabarimala temple, telling the Supreme Court that any change to the long-standing practice should only come after broad consultations with religious scholars and social reformers within the Hindu community.
The government is trying to balance the sentiments of devotees with its earlier position supporting the entry of women of all ages into the temple. In written submissions filed in the ongoing review proceedings related to the Sabarimala verdict, the state government emphasized that long-held practices tied to beliefs should not be considered in isolation, and that a wider consultative process involving experts with deep knowledge of Hindu traditions is necessary to address the matter.
Submissions were filed in the Supreme Court in the review petitions arising from the 2018 judgment in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, which struck down the restriction on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 years at the Ayyappa temple.
The state said Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess and practice religion, including rituals, ceremonies, and modes of worship that form an integral part of a faith. However, the right is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions related to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of the Constitution.
It further emphasized that Article 25 allows the state to introduce laws for social reform and for opening Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus, including women.
The government argued that the concept of "morality" in Articles 25 and 26 should be understood as constitutional morality, rooted in principles such as equality, non-discrimination, protection of liberty, and the welfare of society. The state submitted that determining whether a particular practice is an essential religious practice should primarily depend on the doctrines of the religion and the beliefs of the community following it.
The Kerala government reiterated that, given the sensitive nature of the Sabarimala issue and the strong response from devotees, any judicial review of the long-standing practice should follow wide consultations with religious scholars and social reformers.
Submissions were filed in the Supreme Court in the review petitions arising from the 2018 judgment in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, which struck down the restriction on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 years at the Ayyappa temple.
The state said Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess and practice religion, including rituals, ceremonies, and modes of worship that form an integral part of a faith. However, the right is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions related to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of the Constitution.
It further emphasized that Article 25 allows the state to introduce laws for social reform and for opening Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus, including women.
The government argued that the concept of "morality" in Articles 25 and 26 should be understood as constitutional morality, rooted in principles such as equality, non-discrimination, protection of liberty, and the welfare of society. The state submitted that determining whether a particular practice is an essential religious practice should primarily depend on the doctrines of the religion and the beliefs of the community following it.
The Kerala government reiterated that, given the sensitive nature of the Sabarimala issue and the strong response from devotees, any judicial review of the long-standing practice should follow wide consultations with religious scholars and social reformers.
September 2018 verdict
In its September 2018 ruling, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the temple was unconstitutional. The majority judgment stated that this practice violated women’s right to freely practice religion under Article 25 and that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules was unconstitutional and ultra vires the parent Act. The Court also ruled that devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination.
While Justices R. F. Nariman and D. Y. Chandrachud delivered concurring opinions, Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, stating that matters of faith and religious practice should generally be left to the devotees. Subsequently, review petitions were filed challenging the verdict. In November 2019, the Supreme Court decided to keep the review petitions pending and referred broader constitutional questions on religious freedom to a larger bench.
A nine-judge bench was later constituted to examine the wider issues, including the scope of religious freedom under Article 25, the rights of religious denominations under Article 26, and the extent to which courts can review religious practices. The matter is currently pending before the apex court.