"Lord Ayyappa's 'Naishtika Brahmacharya' Cannot Be Examined Judicially, Sabarimala a Unique Case": Centre Tells Supreme Court

The Central government today opened arguments in the long-pending Sabarimala temple review against its 2018 verdict which set aside the traditional ban on women aged between 10–50 years.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has 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.

Court has further been told that there can be denominational practices, and those have to be respected. Not everything can be tested on the touchstone of individual dignity or bodily autonomy, SG Mehta said.

"If I go to a mazaar or a gurdwara, I am required to cover my head. I cannot say that this violates my dignity or my right of choice. Similarly, when we go to Ajmer Sharif, we cover our heads. When we go to a gurdwara, we do so as well. Nobody treats that as a violation of bodily integrity. The Sabarimala judgment proceeds on the basis that autonomy and choice are being taken away. I submit that it is not a case of taking away autonomy. It is a matter of respecting the tenets of faith and belief of that religion," the bench was told.

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 Travancore Devaswom Board has told the Supreme court that for the Sabarimala Temple, the final authority on religious customs, rituals, and practices is the hereditary Thanthri of the Thazhamon family who has consistently affirmed, that the restriction on the entry of women is an ancient and essential custom for the welfare of the temple. "The restriction at Sabarimala is not based on caste or any such "section" of Hindus. The temple is unique in its egalitarianism, welcoming people of all castes and even other religions. The restriction is based on age and is uniformly applicable to all women of that age group, irrespective of their caste, class, or section. It is directly linked to the unique 'Naishtika Brahmacharya' character of the deity, a matter of religious doctrine, not social discrimination," the written submissions filed before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Travancore Dewaswom Board states.

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 7, 2026