Sabarimala Hearing Concludes After 18 Days; Guruswamy Sees Reflection Of Sacred Pathinettampadi In Proceedings

After 18 days of the Sabarimala issue being taken up by the Supreme Court, a 9-judge bench today concluded hearing in the reference case arising out of the Sabarimala temple entry issue and questions concerning religious freedom.

As the hearing came to a close today, Justice Aravind Kumar, part of the 9-judge bench, made a reference to the 18 sacred steps leading to the sanctum of the Sabarimala temple called the Pathinettampadi. Pilgrims must ascend these steps as part of their journey, symbolizing various aspects of human experience and spiritual growth.

Justice Kumar said, "After arguments were commenced, today is the 18th day, this reference is an offshoot of Sabarimala, the 18 steps..".

Adding to this, Justice MM Sundresh said, "There cannot be a better person than my brother to say this because he himself is a Guruswamy."

A Guruswamy is typically an elderly pilgrim who has undertaken a long pilgrimage to Sabarimala. They are revered as Ayyappa himself, guiding devotees through the pilgrimage and providing spiritual insights. The Guruswamy plays a crucial role in the Deeksha, which involves fasting, celibacy, and adherence to specific rituals before reaching the temple.

The Sabarimala review petitions before the Supreme Court of India is presently 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.

After five years of the review petitions being taken up last, the Supreme Court of India in March 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.

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: May 14, 2026