The Supreme Court’s directive asking the Kerala government to clarify its position on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple before March 14 has once again placed the ruling CPI(M) in a politically delicate position. With Assembly elections just two months away, the government’s response is being keenly watched as the ruling party still carries the scars of 2019 when its “progressive” stand in favour of allowing women of all ages to enter the shrine proved electorally costly in the subsequent Lok Sabha polls.
On Monday, the top court announced that a nine-judge bench will commence final hearings from April 7 on a batch of petitions concerning alleged discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple. The larger bench will be constituted by Chief Justice Surya Kant, while all parties have been directed to file their written submissions on or before March 14.
Sabarimala, the serene hill shrine nestled in the Western Ghats, has not only shaped Kerala’s cultural fabric but has also significantly influenced its political trajectory. Controversies surrounding the Lord Ayyappa temple have frequently emerged as key issues during election campaigns, with major political parties seeking to mobilise and capitalise on the sentiments of devotees. The most recent of these controversies involve allegations of gold theft and alleged financial irregularities during the Global Ayyappa Sangamam held last year, with the CPI(M) finding itself on the receiving end in both matters.
The legal battle over the centuries-old prohibition on the entry of women of menstruating age into the temple—where the presiding deity is revered as a celibate—reached a flashpoint in 2018 when the Supreme Court of India lifted the ban, triggering widespread protests across Kerala. The CPI(M)-led state government adopted a firm position in support of the verdict and even facilitated the entry of two women into the shrine, even as protests by several Hindu organisations escalated into violence in parts of the state. It also launched a ‘Navodhanam’ (reformation) campaign and set up a ‘women’s wall’ from Kasaragod to Thiruvananthapuram, claiming the participation of over 50 lakh women in the human chain.
The Opposition Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party opposed the top court ruling, arguing that the practice was unique to Sabarimala and warranted protection as a matter of faith and tradition. In the subsequent parliamentary elections, the Left Front was reduced to a single seat, while the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) swept the remaining 19 constituencies. The BJP, which had spearheaded the agitation, also made notable gains, boosting its vote share across the state.
Stand of successive governments
In 2007, the Achuthanandan-led government submitted an affidavit stating that it was bound by a 1990 order of the Kerala High Court, which upheld the ban on women aged 10 to 50 at the Sabarimala temple. The affidavit, however, expressed reservations about the ruling, calling it unfair to bar a section of women from entering the shrine, and recommended the formation of a commission to study the issue in detail.
In 2016, the UDF government under Oommen Chandy filed an additional affidavit, describing the arguments in the previous affidavit as “erroneous” and “legally untenable,” and fully endorsing the existing ban on women’s entry.
The subsequent Pinarayi Vijayan-led government did not formally revise the Oommen Chandy affidavit. However, in a written submission to the Supreme Court in November 2016, it expressed agreement with the original Achuthanandan affidavit. The Vijayan administration also noted that the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, does not envisage any form of prohibition on entry.
What’s government’s stand now?
Stung by the widespread outrage and protests in 2019, the government has softened its previously assertive stance and adopted a more conciliatory approach. While it has not formally announced any change in policy, both the government and the CPI(M) have been careful to avoid taking a vocal position on the issue.
On Monday, state law minister P. Rajeev exercised caution while addressing media queries on the government’s stand. “This is not a matter that can be answered with a simple ‘yes or no’. There are several constitutional complexities involved, and all aspects need to be carefully considered,” he said.
The minister added that the government remains committed to safeguarding the faith of devotees, while emphasising that faith and reform must progress hand in hand.
NSS, SNDP seek to uphold custom
The Nair Service Society (NSS) and the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP), representing two of Kerala’s most influential Hindu communities, have insisted that the government uphold traditional practices. The NSS had been at the forefront of the 2018 protests, mobilising women devotees and organising rallies and demonstrations. Alienating these communities could be politically costly for the CPI(M), which is seeking a third consecutive term in the state, relying heavily on the popularity of the Vijayan government’s welfare initiatives.
The Congress and the BJP have already begun to corner the government over the Supreme Court directive. Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan remarked that the government's duplicity would be exposed if the affidavit was not revised. Satheesan further alleged that several organisations were invited to the Global Ayyappa Sangamam under the false impression that the government would change its stance on women's entry to the temple.
BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar suggested that the government might take a U-turn, as it had done on numerous other issues. He alleged that the government is willing to do anything with an eye on the upcoming elections.
However, for the CPI(M), taking a firm stance either way presents risks. Remaining committed to its previous progressive position could jeopardise electoral prospects with elections looming, while reversing its stand would undermine the reformist image the party has cultivated. The CPI(M) thus finds itself caught literally between the devil and the deep sea.