Supreme Court Questions Woman Who Visited Sabarimala Post 2018 Verdict; Says "She Suddenly Woke Up"

The Supreme Court today questioned a woman who visited the Sabarimala Temple post the court's 2018 verdict which had set aside the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years to enter the Sabarimala Temple.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising told the 9-judge bench hearing the review petitions that the women she was representing, named Bindu, had entered the Sabarimala Temple when she was about 40 years old. "They did a Shuddhi. She must have been about 40 years of age when she went. The chief did a Shuddhi. I had filed a petition in this Court, and there is an order giving police protection. But she never went again. That was the end of the story. She did not have the courage to go a second time."

Hearing this, the bench had a quick repartee:

Justice BV Nagarathna: "Had she gone earlier?"

Jaising: "Yes, when she was 11 her mother took her."

Justice Aravind Kumar: "What did she do between 11 and 40?"

Jaising: "She became a lawyer and then she taught in a law school, after the judgment came, she went again."

Justice Kumar: "Suddenly she woke up.."

Jaising: "We all wake up with judgments of this court.."

Justice Nagarathna: "Is she a devotee?"

Jaising: "If I tell you she went for introspection...will you be satisfied with it?"

Justice Nagarathna: "Someone who is not a devotee goes just because a judgment is there. We respect introspection but it is not showing which comes only one day, it is constant for a human conscience."

Justice Nagarathna went on to tell Jaising that in Hindu culture when there is birth or death in families they don't go to temples. "Now they will file petition saying we want to go, this is all respect and restraint", the judge cautioned.

Earlier today, Supreme Court observed that it cannot hollow out religion in the name of reform and that matters of belief and conscience cannot be subjected to judicial debate. Justice Nagarathna had observed that Article 25(2)(b), which empowers the State to make law for social reform, is not a right in itself, and is only an enabling power. "In the name of reform, don't hollow out the religion. Let us not open rituals and ceremonies which are there for centuries," Justice Nagarathna said.

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 29, 2026