Lord Ayyappa Devotees Before Supreme Court: "Sampradaya Attached To Sabarimala Must Be Followed"

The Supreme Court today heard submissions on behalf of Kerala Kshethra Samarakshana Samithi, Shabrimala Aiyappa Seva Samajam and Kantaru Rajeevaru in the batch of review petitions filed against the 2018 Sabarimala Verdict. Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan appeared for the review petitioners.

The senior lawyer told a nine-judge bench hearing the review petitions that ifHindus want to visit a particular temple, the sampradaya attached to that temple must be followed. "Take the case of Ayyappa. We do not have that rigid system, all Hindus are Hindus, but interestingly, in Sabarimala, no distinction is made. There is no bar to Christians or Muslims entering. They can also go. But they must have faith and belief in the divinity of Ayyappa. They have to follow the 40-day vratham, and whatever practices are enjoined on the believers, and then approach. Nobody is prohibited from this", Vaidyanathan added.

Vaidyanathan further told the court that the right under Article 26(b) of the Constitution of India, that is the right of a denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, cannot be subjected to any law made pursuant to Article 25(2)(b).

Court also heard the concluding submissions made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who argued that there are temples where men are not allowed because it is a Devi Bhagwati temple. "There are temples, details of which I have mentioned, where male priests are under a religious mandate to wash the feet of female devotees. There are temples like the Pushkar temple, the only Brahma temple in the country, where married men are not allowed. There is also a temple in Kerala where men enter dressed as women. As I have read in detail, they go to beauty parlours, and their female family members help them dress in sarees and other attire. Only males go there. So it is not a question of male-centric or female-centric religious beliefs. In the present case, it happens to be woman-centric," the bench was told.

Yesterday Supreme Court was told that the right of entry into the Sabarimala temple must be tested against the rights of its devotees and the beliefs that they have. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made this submission before a 9-judge bench hearing the long-pending Sabarimala temple review against its 2018 verdict which set aside the traditional ban on women aged between 10–50 years.

"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 told a CJI Surya Kant led bench.

Earlier, SG Mehta 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.

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 9, 2026