New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on April 29 orally remarked that devout women followers of Bhagwan Ayyappa may choose to defer their visit to the Sabarimala shrine until after the age of 50 years in the case of Kantaru Rejeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association. Justice BV Nagarathna, who is part of the Constitution Bench examining the issue, made the observation during the proceedings. “The true devotees who are women between 10-50 years, they also observe this restraint and stay away (from Sabarimala Mandir). After 50 years, they will go,” Justice Nagarathna said. The matter is being heard by a nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The Bench also emphasised that while interpreting constitutional protections relating to religious freedom, the Court does not wish to contribute to the erosion or destruction of any religion.
Background of the Sabarimala dispute
The present proceedings arise from a reference linked to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 judgment that permitted women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala Mandir in Keralam. That verdict had struck down a long-standing custom that barred women of menstruating age from accessing the hill shrine dedicated to Bhagwan Ayyappa.
Subsequently, in November 2019, the Supreme Court delivered its decision on review petitions challenging the 2018 ruling. However, instead of conclusively deciding the issue, the Court framed seven broad constitutional questions relating to the scope of religious freedom and referred them to a larger Bench. These questions, now under consideration by the nine-judge Bench, are expected to have implications beyond the Sabarimala dispute. The outcome could influence similar cases involving faith-based practices and customary restrictions across different religious communities in India.
Courtroom exchanges on faith and custom
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that certain restrictions on Mandir entry are not unique to the Sabarimala context. She observed that similar limitations exist for individuals who have experienced births or deaths in their families, which are traditionally regarded as periods of ritual impurity.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising responded by stating that such practices are typically voluntary and observed by believers out of personal conviction rather than being enforced externally.
Justice Nagarathna then drew a parallel, noting that many women devotees of Bhagwan Ayyappa themselves refrain from visiting the Mandir during the 10–50 age bracket, adhering to the belief system associated with the deity.
“Yes, there are many women in Keralam who say ‘why should I go between the age of 10 and 50 years? I will wait.’ But there are also women who say, ‘why should I not go between the age of 10 and 50 years? You have to deal with them as well. They are not committing a crime by saying they want to go,’ Jaising replied.
Justice Nagarathna further remarked, “Question is whether they are understanding the philosophy of that God or not.” In response, Jaising highlighted her familiarity with traditional practices, stating that such customs have historically governed social conduct, particularly regarding notions of ritual purity.
“Yes, we are aware of it. I have read it in the Shastras. It operates in my personal house. I was not allowed to touch my mother during these periods. As you know, they are not even allowed to go to the funeral pyre. But question is, is it right or wrong? That custom is now gone through actual practice. In my family, every single daughter of the family attended the funeral of our father. No one stopped us, no tantri stopped us, no organisation stopped us. It took place in the Arya Samaj premises. We went, no priest said ‘why are you here?’ We carried out parents on our shoulders,” Jaising said.
She argued that exclusionary practices affecting women are often rooted in the perception that they may defile sacred spaces. “Don’t perceive it in that form,” replied Justice Nagarathna.
“I have taken it (this position) from the Shastras,” said Jaising. The hearings remain ongoing, with the Court expected to address foundational constitutional questions that balance religious tradition with individual rights.
