When SC Reviews 2018 Sabarimala Ruling, The Issues on the Table

When SC Reviews 2018 Sabarimala Ruling, The Issues on the Table

The Supreme Court on Monday said a nine-judge Constitution Bench will start hearing the review petitions on April 7 regarding its 2018 verdict allowing young women entry to the Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Temple. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said the CJI will notify the composition of the bench separately through an administrative order.

The implementation of the 2018 verdict during the temple’s 41-day pilgrimage season that year drew severe public backlash and cost the ruling CPI(M) dearly in the 2019 Lok Sabha election. The state government is weighing its prospects in the apex court, even as it maintains its position as established in its 2017 affidavit permitting entry to women of all ages.

With the review hearings scheduled close to the assembly elections, the political and legal stakes could not be higher. Here is how the issue has evolved over the years.

The Initial Challenge

While the temple has enforced a ban on female pilgrims aged 10 to 50 years, the first legal challenge was mounted in 1990 by S Mahendran of Kottayam in the Kerala High Court. He claimed that young women in the objectionable age group were trekking to the temple and offering prayers there.

In 1991, the HC ruled that the age restrictions on women’s entry are in accordance with tradition and do not violate fundamental rights. It also directed the Travancore Devaswom Board, which oversees the temple’s administration, to bar entry to women of menstruating age.

This ruling established the legal basis for the ban, grounding it in tradition and custom. For nearly two decades, it remained unchallenged at the Supreme Court level.

The Supreme Court Weighs In

In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the entry ban directed by the state government, the Devaswom Board, and the Sabarimala Chief Tantri (head priest). The petitioner sought to declare Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 as unconstitutional, in violation of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 51A(e) of the Constitution.

On September 28, 2018, a five-judge bench of the court, by a 4:1 majority, removed the age restrictions on women’s entry to the hill shrine in Kerala. It struck down as unconstitutional Rule 3(b), which allowed the exclusion of women on the grounds of custom.

The majority judgment held that the practice violated the fundamental rights of women to equality and freedom of religion. It rejected the argument that the restriction was an essential part of religious practice protected under Article 25. The court found that the ban discriminated against women and could not be justified by reference to tradition alone.

This verdict was heavily criticised, with several organisations and stakeholders associated with the temple filing review petitions. The intensity of the backlash revealed deep divisions in society over the role of tradition, the rights of women, and the limits of judicial intervention in religious matters.

The Political Fallout

Ahead of the temple’s annual pilgrimage season in 2019, the court said that its 2018 verdict may impinge on the affairs of other religions, and referred the matter to a larger bench of at least seven judges. However, it did not stay its 2018 verdict.

The implementation of the verdict during the 2018-19 pilgrimage season drew massive protests. Women of menstruating age who attempted to enter the temple were turned back by crowds of devotees. The state government, led by the CPI(M), found itself caught between its stated commitment to the court’s verdict and the reality of popular opposition.

The political cost was steep. The CPI(M) lost heavily in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections in Kerala, with many attributing the defeat to the backlash over Sabarimala. The message was clear: even a party with a progressive ideology could not ignore the strength of religious sentiment.

In 2020, a nine-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice of India S A Bobde held the petitions seeking a review of this verdict as maintainable, and presented seven questions for the Constitution Bench to review. The matter was effectively reopened.

The State’s Shifting Positions

Depending on the party at the helm, the state has taken contrasting positions on the subject. The Left Democratic Front government under Chief Minister V S Achuthanandan took a progressive stance. In its affidavit before the Supreme Court in November 2007, it supported the PIL filed by the Young Lawyers Association. The state asked the apex court to constitute a commission to review the question.

The succeeding United Democratic Front government, led by Congress Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, took a U-turn. In February 2016, the state told the Supreme Court that the assertions in the 2007 affidavit wrongly sought to support the petition. The state said the practice of restricting entry to women aged 10 to 50 years is an essential part of the customs of the temple, protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

The LDF returned to power later that year, and reverted to its 2007 position, advocating for the entry of women of all ages. The state government’s position has thus flipped with every change in government, reflecting the deep political divisions on the issue.

The Current Dilemma

Now, ahead of the review hearing, the CPI(M) is attempting a balancing act. Law Minister and CPI(M) leader P Rajeev said the LDF government would “always stand for the protection of faith.” But the party’s state secretary M V Gopinadan said: “The stand of the government and that of the party may not necessarily be the same.”

This distinction between government and party is a telling one. The government, as a constitutional entity, must take a position before the court. The party, as a political organisation, must navigate the electoral consequences. They are not the same thing.

The government’s 2017 affidavit supports women’s entry. But the party knows the political cost of that position. The review petitions offer a way out—a chance for the court to modify its own judgment, reducing the political pressure on the government.

The Seven Questions

The nine-judge bench will consider seven questions referred to it in 2020. These questions go beyond Sabarimala to the heart of religious freedom in India’s constitutional framework:

1. What is the scope and extent of the right to freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26?

2. Are religious denominations entitled to manage their own affairs in matters of religion?

3. What is the test to determine whether a practice is an essential religious practice?

4. Can essential religious practices be tested on the touchstone of fundamental rights?

5. What is the interplay between the rights of individuals and the rights of religious denominations?

6. Do courts have the power to determine what constitutes an essential religious practice?

7. What is the standard of judicial review of religious practices?

These questions have implications far beyond Sabarimala. They will shape how courts approach issues of religious practice across all faiths. They will determine the balance between individual rights and group autonomy. They will define the limits of judicial intervention in matters of faith.

Conclusion: A Case That Refuses to Settle

The Sabarimala case refuses to settle. More than three decades after the first legal challenge, it remains unresolved. The 2018 verdict, intended to be final, only opened new questions. The review petitions, years in the making, will now be heard.

The case has become a symbol of the tensions within Indian society—between tradition and modernity, between faith and rights, between individual autonomy and community identity. It has exposed the limits of judicial power in the face of deeply held beliefs. It has shown that court orders, however constitutionally sound, cannot simply mandate social change.

The nine-judge bench that hears the review petitions will not just decide the fate of a temple in the Kerala hills. It will shape the future of religious freedom in India. The stakes could not be higher.

Q&A: Unpacking the Sabarimala Review

Q1: What was the 2018 Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala?

On September 28, 2018, a five-judge bench by a 4:1 majority struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, which allowed the exclusion of women aged 10-50 on grounds of custom. The court held that the practice violated women’s fundamental rights to equality and freedom of religion, and that tradition alone could not justify discrimination.

Q2: Why are review petitions being heard now, years after the verdict?

The 2018 verdict drew intense backlash, with multiple organisations filing review petitions. In 2020, a nine-judge bench held these petitions maintainable and referred seven broad questions on religious freedom to a Constitution Bench. The court did not stay the 2018 verdict, but the reference effectively reopened the matter for comprehensive examination.

Q3: What are the seven questions the nine-judge bench will consider?

The questions go to the heart of religious freedom: the scope of Articles 25 and 26, the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs, the test for determining essential religious practices, whether such practices can be tested against fundamental rights, the interplay between individual and group rights, courts’ power to determine essential practices, and the standard of judicial review of religious practices. These will shape religious freedom jurisprudence across all faiths.

Q4: How has the Kerala government’s position changed over time?

The state’s position has shifted with every change in government. The 2007 LDF government supported women’s entry. The 2016 UDF government reversed this, arguing the ban was an essential religious practice. The later LDF government reverted to supporting entry. Currently, the government maintains its 2017 affidavit supporting women’s entry, but the party is attempting a balancing act ahead of elections, with leaders distinguishing between government and party positions.

Q5: What are the political implications of the review hearing?

The 2018 verdict cost the CPI(M) dearly in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, with massive backlash during its implementation. The review petitions offer a potential way out—if the court modifies its judgment, it reduces political pressure on the government. With hearings scheduled close to assembly elections, the political stakes are high. The case demonstrates how deeply religious issues intersect with electoral politics in India.