The Sabarimala Temple is one of the few religious sites in India that has had the same constitutional weight. The shrine to Lord Ayyappa in the heart of Kerala’s forests is more than just a place to go on a pilgrimage. It’s a place where issues of faith, gender, equality, and judicial power come together.

The Supreme Court is getting ready to clear up some long-standing questions about its 2018 decision. Sabarimala is once again at the center of a controversy that goes beyond Kerala. The decision that is coming up is about more than just going to the temple. It has to do with how India finds a balance between constitutional morality and religious freedom in a country with many different religions.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled 4-1 that keeping women aged 10 to 50 out of Sabarimala is against Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution. The majority decision said that the behavior was unfair and did not fall under Article 25’s protection of religious activities that are necessary.

The ruling changed the way the case was framed by putting equality and nondiscrimination against religious freedom and tradition. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) went on to say that the exclusion was a form of “untouchability” under Article 17. This view greatly increased the social importance of the provision. The immediate aftermath was chaotic. There were protests all over Kerala. Women who tried to get into the temple were stopped. The divisions in politics got worse. People came to the shrine to pray and to fight. But the story didn’t end in 2018.

The Review and a Bigger Source

The Supreme Court did not stay the 2018 decision, but in 2019 it sent the issue of religious freedom and constitutional equality to a larger bench. The reference went beyond Sabarimala to include issues like allowing women into mosques and Parsi fire temples, as well as things related to female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra group.

This action effectively put an end to final clarification. The 2018 ruling was still technically in effect, but its constitutional basis was questioned. For almost seven years, Sabarimala has been stuck in legal limbo, with no clear answer or clear reversal.

The decision that is expected to come will have two effects: it will decide what happens to the 2018 ruling and show how courts will look at claims of “essential religious practice” in the future.

The Ayyappan Tradition, Faith, and Custom

Devotees of Lord Ayyappa believe that the temple’s nature naturally keeps women who are menstruating out because the deity is worshipped celibately (naisthika brahmachari). People who believe this say that the restriction is meant to protect the sanctity of a certain religious commitment, not because of ideas of impurity.

The Travancore Devaswom Board, which runs the temple, has always seen the practice as a religious one. People who don’t like the 2018 decision say that the courts went too far by changing the law and getting involved in religion.

For many believers, Sabarimala is more about keeping their religion alive than about gender law. They say that constitutional morality can’t be used to make all of India’s religious traditions the same.

Constitutional Morality vs. Public Opinion

The phrase “constitutional morality,” which was used in the 2018 decision, is now a key idea in Indian law. It means that the Constitution has ideas that could change long-standing social norms.

But it is still hard to apply constitutional morality in religious settings. Can judges change religion from the inside according to the Constitution? Or do judges have to hold back when practices are important to the identity of a faith community? The next decision will probably deal with this tension directly. If the 2018 decision is upheld, it will give the courts more power to change things. A change or reversal could mean that the court is rethinking its decision, or that the system is not able to handle faith-based disputes.

Politics has always been a part of Sabarimala. In Kerala, the issue has changed the stories told during elections and made ideological differences bigger. It helped start bigger conversations across the country about secularism and the part courts play in social change.

Any upcoming decision will definitely have an impact on political talk. Protests could break out if women are allowed to join again. A reversal could bring criticism from groups that fight for gender rights and constitutional scholars.

The Court knows very well that its decision won’t happen in a vacuum. The Sabarimala issue has become a symbol of many other issues, from minority rights to the limits of judicial intervention.

At its core, the Sabarimala case asks what the connection is between religious tradition and gender equality. The majority in 2018 called exclusion “structural discrimination.” The minority view, on the other hand, warned against assuming that any different treatment is unfair, especially in certain religious situations.

The decision that is coming up may change how courts look at claims of gender discrimination in religious systems. It could show whether the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25 can coexist with exclusions based on doctrine instead of social factors. For women who are devoted, the issue is not just a thought experiment. It is about agency—the freedom to worship without regard for state or societal boundaries. For some, it’s about keeping rituals clean. The Court’s balancing act will have long-term effects on India’s laws about gender and religion.

A moment that changed everything

The upcoming Sabarimala ruling will be more than just a court decision. It will show how the Indian courts see their role in bringing about social change. It will determine if constitutional morality continues to be the guiding principle or if judicial restraint will lead the way.

Sabarimala, which is in the Western Ghats, may seem far away from Delhi. But the issues it brings up are very important for India’s democratic experiment. Faith lasts. Constitutions change over time. The Court is in the middle, and it is in charge of turning principle into precedent. The silence before the verdict is thick. When it gets here, it will echo far beyond the temple steps.

Anusreeta Dutta is a columnist and climate researcher with experience in political analysis, ESG research, and energy policy.

© Greater Kashmir