As the Supreme Court resumes hearing the Sabarimala review petitions from Tuesday, the Kerala government has made a move that could have electoral reverberations ahead of polling on Thursday. A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India is examining a batch of writ petitions and review pleas arising from its 2018 verdict that allowed women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala.
Notably, the court had allotted three days each to the review petitioners—those seeking to uphold the traditional restriction on women aged 10–50 entering the Sabarimala temple, and thus opposing the 2018 judgment—and those opposing the review. In a highly tactical move, the Kerala government has now requested to be listed alongside those seeking to uphold Sabarimala traditions. Earlier, the state had been allocated time alongside those opposing the review.
The state government gave a letter to the nodal counsel for those opposing women’s entry in Sabarimala today, requesting an hour to present its position alongside the review petitioners in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court delivered its verdict allowing women’s entry into the temple on September 28, 2018, after 12 years of legal proceedings. The case began in August 2006, when the court issued notice on a petition filed by women lawyers from the Indian Young Lawyers Association, seeking a directive to end the ban on women’s entry to Sabarimala.
In 2007, the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted an affidavit stating that Ayyappa devotees constitute a distinct religious denomination and therefore have the right to regulate entry. However, in February 2008, the V.S. Achuthanandan government stated in its affidavit that women should be allowed entry regardless of age.
The case continued for several years after it was referred to a three-judge bench. In January 2016, a bench headed by the Chief Justice orally observed that it was for women themselves to decide whether they wished to visit the temple. The Oommen Chandy government later submitted an affidavit opposing women’s entry and seeking protection of temple customs. The Devaswom Board appointed by the UDF government also requested that the petitions be referred to a Constitution Bench.
When the Pinarayi Vijayan government came to power in 2016, it did not submit a fresh affidavit but informed the court that it rejected the affidavit filed during the UDF government and would instead stand by the position taken by the VS government. These developments eventually led to the Constitution Bench verdict in September 2018, allowing women’s entry into Sabarimala.
Notably, the LDF government’s stance supporting women’s entry had brought it political setbacks. Ahead of the elections, the government now appears to be officially changing its position.
Social commentator and Sabarimala pro-traditions activist Rahul Eashwar told THE WEEK that he wholeheartedly welcomes the government’s change in position. “As the first person who was arrested and the first person who went to jail, I welcome this change by the government. At the end of the day, this is not about politics but a spiritual matter. I oppose the CPM and its politics, but this issue transcends politics. We welcome the move.
“They may have their own electoral calculations, but that is a different matter. We want the CPM, Congress, the BJP and every party to support us,” he said.
Notably, the Supreme Court is not just looking at Sabarimala but is addressing seven broader constitutional questions. These include the “essential religious practices” doctrine and how religious freedom (Articles 25 and 26) interacts with other fundamental rights such as equality (Article 14).
Eashwar said he hopes the right to faith will be protected.
“We want every government in India to take positions that protect all faiths—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi and others,” he said. “We are glad that Sabarimala has, in a way, become a protective cover for religious freedom under Article 25. As things stand, the Supreme Court cannot take a decision on one practice in isolation and leave others untouched. In that sense, Sabarimala has come to represent a form of resistance against excessive state intrusion into religious practices. That is a welcome development, and as Ayyappa devotees, we take pride in it.”
Earlier, Kerala’s opposition leader V.D. Satheeshan said that if the government is changing its position on Sabarimala, the CPI(M) should first apologise to the public and the opposition.
BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar had also reacted similarly earlier to the news that the government is planning to revise its position. Chandrasekhar also asked the CPI(M) and the LDF to apologise to the faithful for their stance on the Sabarimala women’s entry issue.
