Sabarimala Ruling, 2018
Context:
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will commence hearing review petitions on April 7 regarding Sabarimala Verdict 2018 verdict, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.
Background of the Legal Dispute:
Historically, the temple enforced a strict ban on female pilgrims aged between 10 and 50 years.
In 1991, the Kerala High Court ruled that these age restrictions complied with tradition and did not violate any fundamental rights.
Consequently, the High Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board, which administers the temple, to legally bar the entry of women of menstruating age.
The issue reached the Supreme Court in 2006 when the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the ban.
The 2018 Landmark Verdict:
In 2018, a five-judge Supreme Court bench removed the age restrictions on women's entry to the hill shrine by a 4:1 majority.
The Court officially struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which previously allowed the exclusion of women on the grounds of custom.
The petitioners had successfully argued that Rule 3(b) was unconstitutional and violated Articles 14, 15, 25, and 51A(e) of the Indian Constitution.
SC concluded that such exclusion did not pass the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine and hence could not claim constitutional protection under Article 25.
The ban on entry violated women’s dignity and personal liberty and cannot stand in a modern Constitutional Democracy.
The Sabarimala judgment is not just about temple entry. It’s about a larger constitutional question:
can customs and traditions (even if religious) override fundamental rights?
The majority in this case said no by showcasing constitutional morality, gender equality and individual freedom over exclusion based on custom.
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Indu Malhotra:
The lone dissented judge held that the courts should not interfere in matters of faith unless there’s a clear constitutional violation.
Her opinion shows a conflict between faith and constitutional morality and continues to influence the ongoing debate on the limits of judicial intervention in religion.
Subsequent Developments:
In 2019, noting that the verdict could impact the affairs of other religions, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench of at least seven judges.
Crucially, however, it did not stay its original 2018 verdict.
In 2020, a nine-judge bench declared the review petitions maintainable and presented seven key questions for the Constitution Bench to review.
State’s stance:
The Kerala state government's legal stance has shifted based on the ruling party.
The Left Democratic Front (LDF) has consistently advocated for the entry of women of all ages.
Conversely, the United Democratic Front (UDF) argued in 2016 that the restrictions were an essential custom protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.