"Lord Ayyappa's Idol Entitled To Fundamental Rights; Women Should Not Enter Sabarimala Temple," Senior Advocate Arvind Datar Tells SC
Review pleas have been filed before the Supreme Court against its 2018 verdict which ruled that the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years to enter the Sabarimala Temple was unconstitutional.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar made submissions before Supreme Court's 9-judge bench hearing review petitions filed against its 2018 Sabarimala verdict.
The Supreme Court on Thursday hears submissions by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appearing for the Nair Service Society seeking a review of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.
Datar told a CJI Surya Kant led 9-judge bench that the idol of Lord Ayyappa is entitled to Fundamental rights mentioned under Part III of the Constitution of India.
"The Supreme Court has held that idol is a juristic person, it can hold property, but it is not entitled to PART III rights. That is seriously problematic because if I am a juristic person, why should I be denied the provisions of the constitution which use the word person. A company is a juristic person and it has got Article 14 rights. Even in this Ayodhya case they have made very extensive definition of this thing...", Datar told the bench.
Adding that the restriction on women's entry has continued since many years, court was told that the Nair Service Society is supporting the current ban on women's entry. "I stay in Chennai, this whole Ayyappa thing has picked up in the last 30-35 years. Your lordships should see the devotion is on a different level, they genuinely believe that.," Datar added. He added that each state has its own secularity which has to be respected.
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 23, 2026