Sabarimala Reference Case: Ashwini Upadhyay Tells Supreme Court 2018 Verdict May Lead To Social Fragmentation

As the Supreme Court's 9-judge bench continued hearing petitioners today seeking review of its 2018 Sabarimala Verdict, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay told the bench, 'every action has a reaction, and every judgment has ramifications'.

"What are the long-term consequences. Whether, over the next twenty five years, we move towards a more integrated and developed society, or whether the outcome leads to deeper fragmentation. These are considerations which, in my respectful submission, cannot be ignored," Upadhyay told the CJI Surya Kant led bench.

He further argued that Articles 25 and 26 deal with freedom of religion, but they are among the most restricted rights mentioned under Part III of the Constitution of India.

Court was told that certain places of worship have a distinct sanctity. "Just as particular sites in other religions are regarded as unique, similarly Sabarimala has its own distinctive character," Upadhyay stated referring to the deity’s celibacy.

Notably, Upadhyay further argued that all religions are not equal. Displaying copies of the Ramayan, Vishnu Purana and Bhagavad Gita to the bench, he submitted that none of these texts state that a person who does not follow them will go to hell.

In his written submissions, Upadhyay has also referred to a practical reason for not allowing women entry into the Sabarimala Temple, "The trek to Sabarimala used to be an arduous one. The temple was surrounded by 18 hills. And a person needed to fast for 41 days along with it. For menstruating women such a hectic trek was not conducive to their health. Also, along the trek the restroom facilities were not much developed back then. Though men may have felt it comfortable to defecate or bathe in the open, such could not be said for women. Also, in cases of menstruation, medical assistance could not easily be found in the forest. Therefore, the trek to Sabarimala was made men only".

The submissions further state there are 1500 Temples of Lord Ayyappa but the Sabarimala Temple has distinct sanctity. This is the only place, where devotees come after following the 40 days Brahmacharya period. It is not out of context to state that certain temples do not allow men to enter.

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 28, 2026