Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

In Sabarimala U-turn, Kerala backs tradition on entry of women

March 13, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS Paper 2 (Polity Constitutional Provisions) GS Paper 1 (Society)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • In a special cabinet meeting on March 13, 2026, the Kerala government led by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan reversed its earlier position on women's entry into Sabarimala temple, deciding to inform the Supreme Court that the traditional restriction on entry of women of menstruating age should be upheld.
  • The government endorsed the Travancore Devaswom Board's (TDB) resolution to protect Sabarimala's centuries-old practice, which bars women generally between 10 and 50 years from entering the Lord Ayyappa shrine.
  • This marks a sharp reversal from the state government's 2018 position, when it actively supported the Supreme Court's ruling allowing women of all ages to enter.
  • The shift is widely attributed to approaching state assembly elections and concerns that the Sabarimala controversy could hurt the Left Democratic Front (LDF) electorally.
  • The Kerala government stated it would inform the Supreme Court after "wider consultation with Hindu scholars and social reformers."
  • The matter is currently pending before a larger Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which is reviewing the 2018 majority verdict.

Static Topic Bridges

The 2018 Sabarimala Judgment — Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala

On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, held that the exclusion of women aged 10–50 from the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The majority struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which had given legal backing to the exclusion.

  • The case was Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006).
  • The majority held that physiological characteristics cannot be the basis for denying devotees the right to worship, and that the practice violated Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 17 (untouchability), 19(1)(a) (expression), and 21 (life and dignity).
  • Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing that the Sabarimala temple qualifies as a religious denomination under Article 26 with the right to manage its own religious affairs, and that courts should not interfere in matters of faith.
  • Review petitions against the judgment were filed, and in 2019 the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger seven-judge bench to consider questions of essential religious practice and the limits of judicial review.
  • Separately, in 2023, the Supreme Court passed orders addressing related questions of essential religious practice in the context of Muslim women's entry into mosques and Parsi women's entry into agiaries.

Connection to this news: The Kerala government is now effectively backing the petitioners seeking review of the 2018 judgment. Its stated position before the Supreme Court will carry procedural weight as the state was originally a respondent that supported women's entry.

Articles 25 and 26 — Freedom of Religion and Denomination Rights

Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution form the core of the right to freedom of religion. Article 25 grants all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Article 26 gives religious denominations the right to establish and maintain institutions and to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

  • The tension in Sabarimala is between Article 25(1) — individual's right to worship — and Article 26(b) — denomination's right to manage religious affairs.
  • Article 25(2)(b) expressly allows the state to make laws providing for social welfare and reform and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. This was a key basis for the majority judgment in 2018.
  • The test for "essential religious practice" (ERP) was developed by the Supreme Court in the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) case — practices that are fundamental to and constitutive of a religion qualify as essential.
  • The majority in 2018 held that the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice of Ayyappa devotees; the dissent held it was.

Connection to this news: The Kerala government's reversal hinges on the argument that the restriction is an essential religious practice protected under Article 26. The seven-judge bench is expected to lay down clearer guidelines on what constitutes an essential religious practice, with implications far beyond Sabarimala.

Role of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB)

The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) is a statutory body under the Travancore Devaswom Board Act, 1950, responsible for the administration and management of approximately 1,250 temples in Kerala, including Sabarimala. It is the immediate authority over the temple's management and priestly appointments.

  • The TDB is controlled by the state government through nominated and elected members, giving the ruling party significant indirect influence over its decisions.
  • The Board's resolution to protect traditional practices, endorsed by the cabinet, signals that the government will take a formal position before the Supreme Court.
  • The TDB had previously submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court supporting women's entry, consistent with the 2018 government position — making the current reversal procedurally significant.

Connection to this news: Since the TDB is a party to the Supreme Court proceedings and is directly responsible for temple administration, its position shift — backed by cabinet approval — is a formal litigation-strategy change that will be presented to the Court.

Key Facts & Data

  • Sabarimala temple: dedicated to Lord Ayyappa; located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Pathanamthitta district, Kerala
  • Traditional restriction: women generally aged 10–50 barred from entry
  • Key legal instrument challenged: Rule 3(b), Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965
  • 2018 verdict: 4:1 majority in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, September 28, 2018
  • Current status: matter referred to seven-judge bench; pending in Supreme Court
  • Kerala assembly elections: due in 2026
  • Travancore Devaswom Board: administers ~1,250 temples including Sabarimala
  • Chief Justice who delivered majority judgment in 2018: Chief Justice Dipak Misra