Supreme Court to Hear Government's Stance on Sabarimala Temple Entry Restrictions
As Kerala elections draw near, the central government has submitted a crucial response to the Supreme Court regarding the Sabarimala temple entry restrictions for women. The government argues that the ban is rooted in preserving the temple's traditions rather than discrimination. This case, which has sparked significant protests since the 2018 Supreme Court ruling allowing women of all ages entry, will now be examined by a nine-judge bench. The court faces the challenge of balancing personal equality rights with the freedom of religious institutions to uphold their customs. This legal battle is set to have profound implications for both politics and society in Kerala.
Apr 7, 2026, 10:27 IST
Government's Written Response Ahead of Kerala Elections
As the Kerala elections approach, the central government has submitted its written response to the Supreme Court regarding the Sabarimala temple issue. The government clarified that the restriction on women aged 10 to 50 entering the temple is not based on any notion of 'impurity' or discrimination against women. Instead, it aims to uphold the tradition of Lord Ayyappa as a "Naishtika Brahmachari" (lifelong celibate) and maintain the established customs of the temple.
The response indicates that allowing women in this age group to enter the temple could alter the fundamental practices of worship and the traditional representation of the deity, potentially impacting the religious pluralism protected under the Constitution. The Supreme Court's nine-judge constitutional bench will commence hearings on this matter today.
Political and Social Significance
Political and Social Significance
The central government's affidavit holds significant weight just before the elections in Kerala. The Sabarimala issue has always been a sensitive and emotional topic in the state. Following the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that allowed women of all ages to enter, there were widespread protests.
Now, with the government standing in favor of traditions, a new twist has emerged in this legal battle. The court must now determine how to balance the 'right to personal equality' with the 'freedom of religious institutions to maintain their traditions'.