The Supreme Court heard arguments claiming women in South India avoid temples during menstruation as a matter of belief, not bias. The hearing is part of the ongoing Sabarimala review examining the clash between equality and religious freedom.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday heard detailed submissions in the long-pending review petitions challenging the 2018 Sabarimala judgment. A 9-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant considered arguments presented by Senior Advocate MR Venkatesh, appearing for Aathmaartham Trust, along with submissions made earlier by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
During the hearing, Venkatesh argued that certain practices followed by women during menstruation in South India are based on personal belief and discipline rather than discrimination. Addressing the Bench, he submitted,
“In all temples of South India, when women undergo the monthly biological process, voluntarily by their own discipline they do not enter temples. This is a non-written rule. Even in the house, they do not enter the puja room. This is my belief. I can’t give a scientific explanation, but where science ends, belief begins. This is practiced as a discipline by all ladies or most ladies in the South”.
The Court was also informed that under the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry Rules, individuals observing rituals related to birth or death in their families are restricted from entering temples. It was argued that such practices are rooted in the denomination’s right to manage its own religious affairs under the Constitution.
In earlier hearings, Singhvi had addressed the issue of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, arguing that the restriction at Sabarimala is not an absolute bar on women. He pointed out that women below 10 years and above 50 years are permitted entry.
He submitted,
“So it is not gender per se. Now, if I am able to show under Articles 14 and 15 that this exclusion of women between the age of 10 and 50 has a direct nexus with the object, identity and manifestation of the deity, that becomes a legal argument when it connects to the facts. The validity of a classification between women below 10 and above 50 on one hand and women between 10 and 50 has to be judged in that context”.
He further elaborated on the unique nature of the Sabarimala temple and the deity worshipped there, stating,
“You are not dealing with a toy shop. You are not dealing with a restaurant. You are dealing with a deity who is an eternal brahmachari, who eschews all forms of grihastha ashram. Therefore, it is possible to argue why not 11 years, why not 49 years. But it is assumed that women in this age group would be antithetical to the very manifestation and identity of the deity. But those women can certainly visit Lord Ayyappa in many other temples. If they are so concerned, why should they want to visit this one temple which is unique in its form. So, when you apply these tests under Articles 14 and 15, the exclusion has to be seen as having a direct, valid, real and genuine nexus with the identity of the temple you are discussing”.
The Bench also heard Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who highlighted that several religious practices across India impose different forms of restrictions based on gender, depending on the nature of the temple and its traditions.
He submitted,
“There are temples where men are not allowed because it is a Devi Bhagwati temple. There are temples, details of which I have mentioned, where male priests are under a religious mandate to wash the feet of female devotees. There are temples like the Pushkar temple, the only Brahma temple in the country, where married men are not allowed. There is also a temple in Kerala where men enter dressed as women. As I have read in detail, they go to beauty parlours, and their female family members help them dress in sarees and other attire. Only males go there. So it is not a question of male-centric or female-centric religious beliefs. In the present case, it happens to be woman-centric,”.
Mehta further argued that the right of entry into the Sabarimala temple must be examined in light of the beliefs of devotees and their right to practice religion.
The present batch of review petitions has been pending for several years. The issue traces back to 2006, when the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a writ petition challenging Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. The petition sought entry for women aged between 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala temple.
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the traditional restriction, holding that the exclusion of women in the age group of 10–50 years violated Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution. The Court also held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2019, a five-judge Bench, by a 3:2 majority, did not overturn the 2018 verdict but kept the review petitions pending and referred broader constitutional questions to a 9-judge Bench. The Court clarified that issues relating to essential religious practices and the interplay between equality and religious freedom required authoritative determination.
The present 9-judge Bench has expanded the scope of the matter beyond Sabarimala. It is now examining wider constitutional questions, including the rights of Muslim women to enter mosques, the rights of Parsi women in religious spaces, and the issue of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The outcome of this matter is expected to have far-reaching implications across multiple religions and practices in India, shaping the future of constitutional interpretation in matters of faith and fundamental rights.
Case Title:
Kantaru Rajeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Association,
Click Here to Read More On Women’s Entry & Religious
