What Happened
- BJP's Rajeev Chandrasekhar demanded that the Kerala government withdraw all cases filed against Ayyappa devotees who had opposed women's entry into Sabarimala temple following the 2018 Supreme Court verdict.
- The Kerala government had filed cases against over 3,000 supporters of traditional Sabarimala practices after the 2018 ruling.
- Chandrasekhar also demanded a public apology from Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to those who were jailed.
- The LDF-led Kerala government has now shifted its stance, informing the Supreme Court that it supports continuation of the traditional age-based restrictions on women's entry — a reversal of its 2018 position of supporting unrestricted access.
- Congress was criticised for remaining silent on the issue and for previously backing the Left government's stance.
- The timing of the shift is widely seen as electoral strategy ahead of the 2026 Kerala Assembly elections, with both BJP and Congress terming it "political drama."
Static Topic Bridges
Essential Religious Practices and Article 25 of the Constitution
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health, as well as other fundamental rights. Courts test whether a challenged practice constitutes an "essential religious practice" — only practices that are essential or integral to a religion receive protection from state interference.
- Article 25(1): Individual right to freedom of religion, subject to state regulation.
- Article 25(2): State may regulate economic, financial, political, or secular activities associated with religious practice; state may also make laws for social reform and welfare.
- Essential Religious Practices test: Developed in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954); refined in numerous subsequent cases.
- The test asks whether the practice is fundamental to the religion — if the religion can exist without the practice, it does not receive protection.
Connection to this news: The central dispute in the Sabarimala reference is whether the exclusion of women aged 10–50 is an "essential religious practice" protected under Article 25 or whether it is a discriminatory custom that the state can curtail.
Right to Religious Denomination — Article 26
Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage their own affairs in religious matters, and own and administer property.
- The Sabarimala Temple trust had argued the Ayyappa devotees constitute a distinct religious denomination entitled to manage their own affairs under Article 26.
- The 2018 majority rejected this claim, holding that Ayyappans are part of Hinduism broadly and do not form a distinct denomination.
- The 9-judge bench is revisiting this question as one of the core referred issues.
Connection to this news: The Kerala government's changed stance and the BJP's demand both centre on the question of whether the temple's traditional practices fall within the protected sphere of a religious denomination's self-governance.
Constitutional Morality vs. Popular Morality
The Supreme Court in the 2018 Sabarimala verdict distinguished between "popular morality" (what a community collectively believes) and "constitutional morality" (values embedded in the Constitution, including equality and non-discrimination).
- Chief Justice Dipak Misra (majority): Courts must uphold constitutional morality even when it conflicts with popular morality or prevailing social norms.
- The concept traces back to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Constituent Assembly speech (November 4, 1948), where he emphasised that constitutional morality must be nurtured.
- The distinction is critical in cases involving religion, gender, and social exclusion.
Connection to this news: The political shift by the Kerala government — moving from supporting the 2018 verdict to now backing restrictions — illustrates the tension between electoral (popular) morality and constitutional values, a central debate in democratic governance.
Rajiv Gandhi Verdict Recall — State Power and Judicial Accountability
When a state government withdraws a case, it exercises power under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which requires the consent of the court. Courts have held that withdrawal cannot be for political reasons and must be in the public interest.
- Section 321 CrPC: Public Prosecutor may withdraw from prosecution with court's consent.
- Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra (1977): Withdrawal must be in public interest, not as a political favour or to benefit a party.
- State-directed case withdrawal in politically sensitive matters has historically drawn judicial scrutiny.
Connection to this news: Chandrasekhar's demand that the Kerala government withdraw the 3,000+ cases against devotees, if acted upon ahead of elections, would raise questions about the legitimacy of such withdrawal under the standard of public interest versus political motivation.
Key Facts & Data
- Over 3,000 cases were filed against Sabarimala devotees after the 2018 verdict.
- The 2018 Supreme Court verdict was 4:1 (Justice Indu Malhotra dissented).
- A 9-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, began reviewing the 2018 ruling on April 7, 2026.
- Kerala Assembly elections are due in 2026, which contextualises the LDF's sudden stance reversal.
- Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was struck down by the 2018 verdict as unconstitutional.
- The review reference by the 5-judge bench in 2019 (Kantaru Rajeevaru case) raised seven broader constitutional questions, including the scope of Articles 25, 26, and the essential religious practices doctrine.