The impending review of the Sabarimala Temple verdict has reignited one of the most significant constitutional and civilisational debates in modern Bharat. What began as a legal dispute over temple entry has now evolved into a larger question, whether ancient Dharmic traditions can withstand increasing judicial and state intervention. As a nine-judge bench prepares to hear multiple review petitions, the case is being seen not merely as a legal proceeding but as a defining moment for the preservation of Bharat’s spiritual and cultural heritage.
Faith vs judicial authority: who defines religion?
At the core of the controversy lies a fundamental issue: can courts determine what constitutes an essential religious practice? The 2018 judgment that opened Sabarimala to all age groups of women was widely viewed by many devotees as judicial overreach into sacred traditions rooted in Bhagwan Ayyappa’s unique celibate nature (Naishtika Brahmacharya). Petitioners have strongly argued that such decisions venture into theological territory beyond the competence of secular courts. They maintain that religion must be defined by its practitioners, traditions, and scriptures, not by external interpretation.
A significant number of review petitions, estimated at around 50 to 60, have been filed challenging the 2018 Supreme Court verdict on the Sabarimala Temple entry issue. While a complete list of petitioners is not publicly available, it includes key stakeholders such as the Kantaru Rajeevaru (chief priest of Sabarimala); religious organizations like the Nair Service Society, National Ayyappa Devotees (Women’s) Association, and All Kerala Brahmins Association; the Travancore Devaswom Board; the Pandalam Royal Family; and numerous Ayyappa devotees, including women who support the traditional practices of the temple.
The review petitions take a broader approach, questioning the extent to which secular courts can intervene in religious and theological matters, particularly in defining what constitutes an essential religious practice. Petitioners argue that the 2018 judgment imposes a uniform framework that may not align with the unique traditions of Hindu Dharma. They have expressed concern that standards derived from other religious contexts are being applied indiscriminately and hope that the matter, now referred to a larger nine-judge bench, will be examined with greater sensitivity to these distinctions.
Since all review and related petitions have been referred to the nine-judge bench, scheduled to be heard on April 7, 2026, there is a growing view that the 2018 ruling should not be enforced until a final decision is reached. In support of this position, petitioners have cited the 1991 Kerala High Court judgment in S. Mahendran vs. the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, which upheld the traditional restriction on the entry of women of a certain age group, linking it directly to the nature of the presiding deity at Sabarimala.
The background of the case traces back to a writ petition filed in 2006, which challenged the restriction under Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, as unconstitutional. In 2018, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, allowed women aged 10–50 to enter the temple, with Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting in favor of preserving tradition. The judgment led to widespread protests by Ayyappa devotees. In 2019, a five-judge bench acknowledged that the ruling could have implications for other religions as well and referred the broader constitutional questions surrounding religious freedom and essential practices to a nine-judge bench for authoritative consideration.
Demand to restore religious autonomy under the constitution
A central demand of the review petitions is the restoration of full religious autonomy under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Petitioners assert that these provisions were intended to protect both individual and collective religious freedoms, including the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs without interference. They argue that the current interpretation weakens these protections and leaves Dharmic institutions vulnerable to state and judicial control. Importantly, it is emphasized that religion is not granted by the Constitution; it is a pre-existing civilizational reality that the Constitution merely recognizes and protects.
Misuse of the ‘essential religious practices’ doctrine
One of the strongest criticisms emerging from the petitions is against the continued use of the essential religious practices doctrine. Originally introduced in a limited context, this doctrine has, over time, expanded into a tool that allows courts to decide what is or is not fundamental to a religion. Petitioners argue that this effectively places secular institutions in a position of spiritual authority, undermining the very autonomy that the Constitution seeks to guarantee. They warn that if this trend continues, even deeply sacred practices could be invalidated under subjective interpretations of constitutional morality.
Imbalance in application of constitutional principles
Another major concern raised is the perceived imbalance in how constitutional principles are applied. Petitioners contend that Dharmic traditions are often subjected to intense scrutiny and intervention, while similar issues in other religious contexts are either approached differently or left untouched. This has led to growing dissatisfaction among devotees, who argue that the principle of equality under the Constitution must apply uniformly across all religions, without selective interference or reinterpretation.
Contrary to common narratives, petitioners and many devotees assert that the issue is not about discrimination or exclusion but about preserving a unique spiritual tradition intrinsically linked to the deity’s nature. The restriction on the entry of women of a specific age group is seen as part of a deeply rooted ritual practice associated with the celibate character of Bhagwan Ayyappa. Notably, even sections of women devotees have supported the traditional practice, reinforcing the argument that the issue cannot be simplistically framed as one of gender inequality.
The outcome of this case is expected to have far-reaching consequences beyond Sabarimala. Petitioners have pointed out that the principles being debated, particularly judicial interference in religious matters, could impact multiple religions and practices across the country. The case raises a broader constitutional question: should the State and courts have the authority to reshape religious practices, or should faith communities retain the right to govern their own traditions?
A defining moment for dharmic civilisation
The Sabarimala review represents a defining moment for Bharat’s Dharmic traditions. At its core, this issue goes beyond a single temple, it concerns whether centuries-old, deeply rooted practices can be preserved without being disrupted by external legal interventions. Traditions that have evolved over time, shaped by faith, philosophy, and spiritual discipline, cannot be easily reinterpreted through a purely legal lens without risking distortion of their original essence.
This case highlights the delicate balance between constitutional principles and religious autonomy. There is a growing concern that excessive intervention may lead to the manipulation or misinterpretation of sacred practices, reducing complex spiritual traditions to simplified legal categories. Such an approach risks undermining the very diversity and depth that define Bharat’s civilizational heritage.
Ultimately, the expectation is that the judiciary will recognize the importance of safeguarding traditional practices while maintaining constitutional integrity. The outcome of this case will play a crucial role in determining whether long-standing Dharmic traditions can continue to exist on their own terms, without being reshaped by frameworks that may not fully capture their spiritual significance.
