The impending reconsideration of the 2018 judgement on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple marks one of the most consequential constitutional moments in recent judicial history. By constituting a nine-judge Bench and fixing a tight hearing schedule from April 7 to April 21, the Supreme Court has signalled its resolve to confront a question that lies at the uneasy intersection of faith, equality and judicial authority.
At the heart of the matter is whether courts can invalidate a religious practice on constitutional grounds. The Bench must revisit the 1954 Shirur Mutt ruling, which held that the “essential part” of a religion should be determined primarily by that religion’s own doctrines.
Over time, this “essential religious practices” test has become both a shield for religious autonomy and a source of judicial entanglement in theological questions. The Sabarimala review forces the court to clarify whether constitutional morality can override denominational claims of essentiality.
2018 verdict and social churn in Kerala
The 2018 verdict upheld the equality principle by allowing women of all ages to enter the temple. Yet, the ruling triggered an unprecedented social churn in Kerala. Massive protests erupted, and even some initial supporters recoiled when the state government attempted strict enforcement.
The episode exposed a troubling question: does the legitimacy of a judicial verdict depend on its acceptance by the majority? In a constitutional democracy, the answer must remain an unequivocal no. The exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 has been justified on the ground that the presiding deity is a celibate. However, history shows that many Sabarimala traditions have evolved.
Pilgrimage practices have been relaxed, access routes improved, and the arduous forest trek that once posed genuine risks to young women is no longer the barrier it once was. Notably, there is no scriptural injunction universally barring menstruating women from temples; the restriction appears rooted more in custom than in doctrine.
Broader implications for religious freedom cases
The stakes extend far beyond one shrine. In 2019, a Constitution Bench referred over 60 review petitions to a larger Bench and clubbed related questions: Muslim women’s entry into mosques, the rights of Parsi women married outside the faith, and the practice of female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohras. Together, these cases compel the court to define the limits of judicial intervention in religious affairs.
Political context and constitutional morality
With elections looming, political parties may be tempted to pander to “religious sentiments”. The Left Democratic Front’s earlier constitutional stance will be tested against electoral expediency, while rivals seek to harvest majoritarian anxieties. The court, however, must remain insulated from such pressures.
Ultimately, the Sabarimala review is not about faith versus law; it is about whether constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity can coexist with living traditions. The answer will shape not only the future of one temple, but also the moral authority of the Constitution itself.
