Sabarimala Women Entry Controversy: Tradition vs Court Verdict

Last Updated on January 18, 2026 by Yatrapur

Sabarimala Ayyappa Swamy Temple women entry controversy

The Sabarimala Ayyappa Swamy temple women's entry controversy refers to the centuries-old practice that barred women of menstruating age (between 10 and 50 years) from entering the temple. The controversy centers on the conflict between traditional religious practices and the principles of gender equality and fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Following a landmark 2018 Supreme Court judgment overturning the ban, the controversy gained national and international attention, leading to widespread protests and complex legal and social consequences.

Introduction

Date of Verdict: September 28, 2018

Names of Judges:

The five-judge Constitution Bench consisted of:

Chief Justice Dipak Misra
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Justice R.F. Nariman
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice Indu Malhotra (the sole dissenting judge)

Historical and religious justifications for the ban

The ban on women entering Sabarimala is based on specific religious and historical beliefs associated with Lord Ayyappa. The main argument is that the deity is a lifelong celibate. Devotees believe that the presence of women of reproductive age would violate his vow of celibacy.

This tradition is also linked to the 41-day "vrata," or period of penance, that pilgrims must observe before visiting the temple. This period involves strict celibacy and austerity, which supporters of the ban believe is impossible for women during menstruation. This ban is not seen as discrimination, but as a symbol of respect for the deity's celibate nature. A 1991 Kerala High Court ruling upheld the ban, citing long-standing practice and the deity's celibate nature.

Legal challenges and the 2018 Supreme Court decision

The legal battle over this ban began in 2006, when the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court. They argued that the ban was unconstitutional and violated the fundamental rights of women. The petition challenged Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, which allowed the exclusion of women based on custom.
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark 4:1 majority verdict, striking down the ban. The majority opinion, led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, held that:

The practice of excluding women of a certain age group was a form of gender discrimination and violated their fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and freedom of religion (Article 25).
The court held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination and, therefore, were subject to the state's social reform mandate.
The ban was not considered an "essential religious practice" required by the religion, and thus, it could not override constitutional rights.
The judgment also condemned the exclusion of women based on notions of "purity and pollution" associated with menstruation, calling it a form of "untouchability" under Article 17.

The lone dissenting judge, Justice Indu Malhotra, argued that the judiciary should not interfere with religious practices unless they are "abhorrent" and that it is up to the religious community to decide what constitutes an essential religious practice.

Later events and ongoing tensions

The 2018 decision faced widespread opposition. Massive protests erupted across Kerala, led by devotees, conservative Hindu organizations, and political parties, who opposed the decision. The protesters, including many women, believed the court had violated their faith and the temple's traditions.

The Kerala state government, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), initially attempted to enforce the court order and provide police protection to women attempting to enter the temple. On January 2, 2019, two women, Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga, successfully entered the temple, becoming the first women of menstrual age to do so in decades. Their entry sparked further protests and a "purification ritual" was performed at the temple.

Since then, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear review petitions against its 2018 decision. In a 2019 order, a larger bench referred the case to a seven-judge bench to re-examine broader questions about the relationship between religious practices and fundamental rights. However, the court did not stay its previous decision, leaving the 2018 judgment technically in effect. The issue remains a source of political and social tension, with various groups continuing to pursue their own issues.

Related Articles -

Social Media - Instagram| x.com