By Shazia Siddiqui

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition from a minor girl who sought permission to visit the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple during the Mandala Pooja/Makaravilakku season. This ruling aligns with the complex and ongoing judicial debate surrounding the temple’s age restrictions on female devotees and the broader constitutional questions about religious freedoms and gender equality.

The petitioner, a young girl who had not yet reached puberty, argued that the traditional ban on females between the ages of 10 and 50 should not apply to her. She requested the court to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the temple, to allow her entry during the specific pilgrimage season. The Sabarimala Temple, located in Kerala’s Periyar Tiger Reserve, is a revered site for millions of pilgrims who endure a rigorous trek through the Western Ghats to worship Lord Ayyappa. The temple’s customs, particularly the restriction on women of menstruating age, have been a point of contention and legal scrutiny for decades.

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition is intricately tied to the larger, unresolved issues pending before the Supreme Court of India. This ongoing legal saga began with the landmark judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2019), where the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruled that the temple’s ban on women aged 10 to 50 violated their fundamental rights under Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution. This Article guarantees the right to freely practice religion. The Court interpreted this provision to mean that all persons, irrespective of gender, are entitled to practice the Hindu religion, including visiting places of worship like Sabarimala.

This 2019 ruling followed an earlier decision by the Kerala High Court in 1993, which had upheld the temple’s traditional age restrictions. The matter was further complicated when a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the issue to a five-judge bench for a more comprehensive review, resulting in the ongoing review petition in Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review-5 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association. This larger bench is tasked with resolving the interplay between religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 and the right to equality under Article 14, along with other related issues.

Given the Supreme Court’s pending decision, the Kerala High Court found it inappropriate to rule on the petitioner’s request. The court emphasized that the questions about religious rights and gender equality are currently under the scrutiny of the highest judicial authority in the country. As a result, the High Court concluded that the petitioner could not seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, which grants high courts the power to issue certain writs, as doing so would preempt the Supreme Court’s authority in this matter.

In addition to the constitutional issues, the court also considered the administrative and legal framework governing the Sabarimala Temple under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. This act outlines the responsibilities of the Travancore Devaswom Board in managing the temple’s operations and maintaining traditional rites and ceremonies. The court highlighted that the Board, as the trustee of the temple, is obligated to uphold these customs and practices until directed otherwise by a higher judicial body.

The court acknowledged that the Travancore Devaswom Board must ensure the regular performance of traditional ceremonies and provide adequate facilities for devotees. This duty includes managing the temple properties and conducting daily worship and festivals in accordance with longstanding traditions. The court stressed that the Board must carry out these responsibilities with utmost care and caution, respecting the temple’s established customs.

Ultimately, the Kerala High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition underscores a deferential stance towards ongoing judicial processes. By doing so, the court respects the broader constitutional issues currently under review by the Supreme Court and the need to maintain traditional practices until a definitive legal resolution is reached. This approach reflects a careful balancing act between upholding religious customs and navigating the complex landscape of constitutional rights in India.

Case Title: Snigdha Sreenath v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2024: KER: 39517

Click here to read/Download the judgement