Sabarimala Hearing: Supreme Court Told South Indian Women Do Not Enter Temples During Menstruation

The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench today heard submissions made by Senior Advocate MR Venkatesh, appearing on behalf of the Aathmaartham Trust, seeking review of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict. The bench was told that women in South India refrain from entering temples or puja rooms in their homes during menstruation

This practice stems from their beliefs, and not from discrimination, the CJI Surya Kant led bench was further told.

"In all temples of South India, when women undergo the monthly biological process, voluntarily by their own discipline they do not enter temples. This is a non-written rule. Even in the house, they do not enter the puja room. This is my belief. I can't give a scientific explanation, but where science ends, belief begins. This is practiced as a discipline by all ladies or most ladies in the South", Venkatesh told the bench.

Court was further told that as per the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry Rules persons related to births and death in their families are barred from temple entry which is a ritualistic practice emanating from the denomination's right to manage its own affairs. 

Last week, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi had discussed the issue of Article 14 and the arguments of excluding females. There is no total exclusion of females, females below 10 and above 50 are allowed, he had said. "So it is not gender per se. Now, if I am able to show under Articles 14 and 15 that this exclusion of women between the age of 10 and 50 has a direct nexus with the object, identity and manifestation of the deity, that becomes a legal argument when it connects to the facts. The validity of a classification between women below 10 and above 50 on one hand and women between 10 and 50 has to be judged in that context", he had argued.

"You are not dealing with a toy shop. You are not dealing with a restaurant. You are dealing with a deity who is an eternal brahmachari, who eschews all forms of grihastha ashram. Therefore, it is possible to argue why not 11 years, why not 49 years. But it is assumed that women in this age group would be antithetical to the very manifestation and identity of the deity. But those women can certainly visit Lord Ayyappa in many other temples. If they are so concerned, why should they want to visit this one temple which is unique in its form. So, when you apply these tests under Articles 14 and 15, the exclusion has to be seen as having a direct, valid, real and genuine nexus with the identity of the temple you are discussing", the bench was also told.

Court has 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. 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.

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.

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 17, 2026