God's word vs law: How the Sabarimala case could redefine religious freedom

Starting today, April 7, 2026, a nine-judge Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant begins final hearings on the Sabarimala review. The court will address seven constitutional questions to determine if constitutional morality and the right to equality can override ancient religious customs and essential religious practices.

Here is what is at stake, and why.

THE OMINOUS SIGNS

In the summer of 2006, the Travancore Devaswom Board, the statutory body that administers the Lord Ayyappa temple, had a problem. There had been a fire mishap in 2003. During a ritualistic procession in 2004, the temple elephant had rejected the thidampu, a replica of the Lord's idol. The conduct of temple affairs had not been smooth. The Board suspected Lord Ayyappa was unhappy.

To find out, they did what the tradition prescribed. They appointed a ten-member team of experts, led by a renowned astrologer, to conduct an Ashtamangala Devaprasnam, an astrological procedure, held once every twelve years, to ascertain the Lord's opinion of the temple's affairs.

The astrologer read the betel leaves. And, when the Lord spoke through him, a chill ran down the Board's spine. Or, so it said.

THE CHILD OF HARIHARAN

The Sabarimala Sastha Temple in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala is a world-renowned pilgrimage centre. Perched at an altitude of 914 metres above sea level in the Western Ghats, the temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappan, who according to Hindu mythology is the son of Lord Shiva and the mythical Mohini, one of the forms taken by Lord Vishnu to slay a demon. (Vishnu is Hari, Shiva is Haran).

The name Sabarimala literally derives from the legend of Sabari, a tribal devotee of Rama mentioned in the Ramayana. It means “the hill of Sabari.”

While the exact date of its construction is debated, the Sabarimala temple is believed to have been founded between the 10th and 12th centuries. Legend attributes its consecration to Lord Parasurama, while historical accounts link its renovation to the Pandalam dynasty after the deity Ayyappan lived his earthly life.

THE CELIBATE DEITY

Lord Ayyappa is revered as “Manikanta Swamy,” a celibate deity who symbolises self-control and detachment from worldly pleasures. The temple is unique because it welcomes devotees of all castes and religions, as long as they follow the 41-day vratham, a strict period of fasting and spiritual observance before the pilgrimage.

Ayyappan remains one of the few deities in the Hindu pantheon respected by other religious communities, including Muslims. At the foothills of Sabarimala stands a mosque dedicated to Vavar, a Muslim figure from Ayyappa's legend, and pilgrims traditionally offer prayer at both shrines before beginning the trek to the main temple.

(Some historians identify Ayappa as a prince of the Pandalam Dynasty who led a military campaign to reclaim the temple and protect the kingdom from invaders. His alliance with Vavar is seen by historians as a strategic and spiritual bridge that has maintained peace between the Hindu and Muslim communities in the region for centuries).

The shrine was rebuilt in 1950 after a fire gutted the premises. It's managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), a statutory autonomous body constituted under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1950.

2006: THE LORD SPEAKS

Back to 2006, then. With the astrologer as the intermediary, the Board heard the Lord speak. According to the astrologer who conferred with the deity, Lord Ayappa was displeased for a very specific reason. The astrologer announced rituals were being inadequately observed, development projects were causing trouble, and contrary to the temple's long-standing rules, a woman had entered its premises.

The astrologer, it later emerged, had received a confessional fax from Jayamala, an actor-producer from Karnataka. Jayamala admitted to having involuntarily touched the idol in 1987 when pushed by a crowd. For eighteen years, overcome with guilt, she had said nothing, until she could not hide the incident. (The story is disputed, but that's a separate spiel).

The incident created a storm. The reason: fertile women are banned from entry.

COMPLEX HISTORY OF THE BAN

The historical record of the entry ban at Sabarimala is a complex mix of oral tradition, colonial documentation, and modern legal rulings.

The most cited historical evidence is the Memoir of the Survey of the Travancore and Cochin States (1816–1820). Lieutenants Ward and Conner recorded that women who had “attained the age of puberty" were forbidden from the temple. This suggests that the custom existed in some form for at least 200 years, rooted in the deity’s status as a Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate).

Historians and writers like NS Madhavan point out that enforcement was inconsistent before the mid-20th century. For instance, they claim, the Maharani of Travancore visited in 1940. While some claim women entered for ceremonies like Chorounu (first rice-feeding). Traditionalists argue these were rare exceptions occurring before the temple became easily accessible via modern roads.

The ban transitioned from custom to law in 1991, when the Kerala High Court ruled that the restriction was long-standing and must be strictly enforced.

Then came the Jayamala controversy.

THE SUPREME COURT PIL

Soon after Jayamala’s “confession” the Board asked the police to question her over the incident. It consulted lawyers in a bid to prosecute the actress. The Board announced the temple will be purified for several years.

In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged the Sabarimala ban in the Supreme Court, arguing that restricting women violated constitutional guarantees of equality. They specifically contested the 1965 Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, which provided legal cover for the exclusion.

The legal battle culminated on September 28, 2018, when a five-judge bench delivered a landmark 4:1 verdict lifting the restrictions.

The majority comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, and DY Chandrachud ruled that biological factors cannot limit a woman's right to worship. They concluded that Ayyappa devotees do not form a distinct religious denomination and struck down Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Act as unconstitutional.

Justice Indu Malhotra provided the lone dissent, cautioning that courts should generally refrain from interfering in deep-seated religious beliefs and that the notion of “rationality” should not be the sole yardstick for matters of faith.

PROTESTS, FIRST ENTRIES AND REVIEW

The 2018 verdict triggered immediate, widespread unrest at the Nilakkal and Pamba base camps. Protesters physically targeted women journalists attempting to cover the temple's reopening, underscoring the intensity of the opposition.

In January 2019, the entry of two women Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga marked a historic turning point as the first to exercise their court-affirmed rights. Their visit sparked a violent state-wide hartal organized by the Sabarimala Karma Samiti, leading to clashes across Kerala.

In response, over 50 review petitions were filed by diverse groups, including the Nair Service Society and the National Ayyappa Devotees (Women's) Association.

This culminated in a significant November 2019 ruling: a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi opted not to decide the reviews immediately. Instead, by a 3:2 majority, the Court referred the case to a larger bench, noting that the dispute involved fundamental questions regarding the intersection of gender equality and religious freedom applicable to multiple faiths.

2026: THE LARGER ISSUES

The legal and social battle over Sabarimala has entered its most critical phase as of April 2026. Following the 2019 decision to refer the matter to a larger nine-judge bench, the case was delayed for several years, partially due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

After years of procedural waiting, a nine-judge Constitution Bench will begin hearing arguments on April 7, 2026.

Presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the bench is not just looking at Sabarimala. It has expanded the case to create a framework for how constitutional law interacts with religious faith across all religions.

The bench is currently adjudicating specific legal questions framed to resolve the conflict between Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) and Article 14 (Right to Equality). Key issues include:

• Whether essential religious practices can be overridden by the Constitution.
• Whether a person who doesn't belong to a specific religion (like a PIL petitioner) has the right to challenge its internal customs.

IMPACT ON OTHER RELIGIONS

Because the Supreme Court decided the Sabarimala issue was too narrow, they have included several other major cases. The final bench will now simultaneously decide:

1. Islam: The right of Muslim women to enter mosques and Dargahs.
2. Zoroastrianism: The rights of Parsi women who marry outside their faith to enter Fire Temples.
3. Dawoodi Bohra Community: The legality of female genital mutilation (FGM) and excommunication practices.

A PIVOTAL MOMENT

The Court has set a rigorous schedule to conclude arguments by the end of April 2026.

The Travancore Devaswom Board has urged the court to adopt a “community-centric” understanding of religion and to refrain from reinterpreting faith-based practices. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has informed the court that the Union Government supports the review petitions, effectively seeking to reverse the 2018 ruling.

The final judgement is expected to be one of the most significant in Indian history, as it will finally determine if the Constitution or Religious Custom has the final say in the inner sanctum of Indian faith.

Simply put, the court will finally answer: in a constitutional democracy, can a God's assumed preferences override a citizen's rights?

- Ends