"Government Does Not Want To Control Temples At All," Centre Tells Supreme Court During Sabarimala Hearing

The Central government on Tuesday told a 9-judge bench hearing the batch of review petitions filed against the Supreme Court's 2018 Sabarimala verdict that it is not in favor govt control over temples.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan had submitted before the CJI Surya Kant led bench that as per submissions made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and senior advocate AM Singhvi for Travancore Devaswom Board, a particular interpretation was given to Articles 25 and 26 that government wanted to control temples.

Post the submissions by Sankaranarayanan, as the bench was rising for lunch, SG Mehta requested to clarify the Centre's stand. "Mr. Sankaranarayanan said something on my arguments, I am making it clear..goverment does not want to control the temples at all and what he mentioned was purely a constitutional interpretation of Article 25(1)(a), which empowers the state to manage economic, political and secular activities of any religion.”

Justice Amanullah asked Mehta whether his argument was confined to Hindu religious institutions. The SG said when the court and counsels were engaged in interpretation of constitutional provisions, they could not “be viewed through Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any other religious lens”.

Earlier, SG Mehta had told court that the right of entry into the Sabarimala temple must be tested against the rights of its devotees and the beliefs that they have. "The right of entry into a temple must be tested against the rights of devotees who believe that a particular class of persons should not be permitted entry. That aspect has never been examined. It is said that one or a few individuals want to enter. But has the corresponding right under Article 25 of other devotees been examined? So even my right as a follower must be considered," SG Mehta had stated.

SG had also told a CJI Surya Kant led 9-judge bench that Sabarimala is a specific sui generis case wherein the attributes of the deity, i.e., Lord Ayyappa cannot be judicially examined. "Sabarimala is a specific sui generis case, this is the attribute of a deity, how can we judicially examine that..If a religious head states that something is a matter of faith and the followers abide by it, the question whether such a faith exists is something which the Court can examine using accepted judicial tools. However, the rationality or scientific basis of that faith cannot be gone into.", SG Mehta told the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi.

SG Mehta further submitted before the bench that Sabarimala concerns only a particular age group. "There should be no confusion. Lord Ayyappa temples across the country and the world are open to women of all ages. It is only one temple which has this restriction. It is a sui generis case. To my knowledge, there are Ayyappa temples even in New Delhi where women of all ages, from children to the elderly, worship without any restriction. It is only this one temple," SG argued.

He had further submitted before the bench that Sabarimala concerns only a particular age group. "There should be no confusion. Lord Ayyappa temples across the country and the world are open to women of all ages. It is only one temple which has this restriction. It is a sui generis case. To my knowledge, there are Ayyappa temples even in New Delhi where women of all ages, from children to the elderly, worship without any restriction. It is only this one temple," SG argued.

Last month, after five years of the review petitions being taken up last, the Supreme Court of India today took up the batch of petitions challenging its September 2018 decision wherein a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority had ruled that the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. Notably, more than 50 review petitions have filed by devotees, religious groups, and organisations arguing that the Court interfered with essential religious practices as Lord Ayyappa devotees form a separate religious denomination.

The issue dates back to 2006, when Indian Young Lawyers Association had filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (1965 Rules) and sought a direction to permit female devotees between the ages of 10 to 50 years to enter the Sabarimala temple without any restrictions.

By a majority of 4:1, the Supreme Court allowed the Writ Petition on 28 September 2018 holding that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court also concluded that exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entry into the temple is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Further, Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was declared as violative of Article 25 (1) to the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

On 14 November 2019, a five judge Constitution Bench delivered a crucial order by a 3:2 Majority wherein it kept the Review petitions pending without overturning the 2018 judgment and referred larger constitutional questions to a 9-judge bench. The 9-judge bench led by former CJI SA Bobde held that no matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so, under the provisions of the Constitution and held that the review petitions were maintainable.

The Sabarimala review petitions is now one of the most important constitutional debates, balancing gender equality with religious freedom. Instead of immediately revising the 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court has chosen to examine wider questions affecting multiple faiths, making the case a landmark in constitutional and religious jurisprudence. Court has now expanded the issue beyond Sabarimala to include Muslim women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women’s religious rights and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication practices along with other similar issues.

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Vs INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B V Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale and Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Date: April 21, 2026