Background and Context of the Centre’s Submission

In early 2024, the Ministry of Law and Justice representing the Centre submitted before the Supreme Court of India that public morality must govern matters of faith in the ongoing Sabarimala dispute. The case revolves around the entry of women aged 10-50 years into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, a practice historically prohibited by temple customs. This submission was made in the context of the landmark 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) 11 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court upheld the right of women of all ages to enter the temple under Article 25 of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of religion subject to public order, morality, and health.

• The Centre’s stance highlights the tension between individual religious freedoms and collective societal norms.
• The submission underscores the need to interpret constitutional provisions in light of prevailing public morality.
• The issue remains contentious due to conflicting interpretations of religious customs and constitutional rights.

Constitutional and Legal Framework Governing Sabarimala

Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India protect freedom of religion but allow reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and health. The 2018 Supreme Court verdict declared the ban on women’s entry unconstitutional, emphasizing gender equality and non-discrimination under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Section 3). However, the Court also acknowledged the need to respect religious sentiments, creating a complex legal balancing act.

• The Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 and Kerala’s corresponding rules regulate temple entry but do not explicitly address gender-based restrictions.
• The Representation of the People Act, 1951 is invoked for maintaining public order during pilgrimage seasons.
• The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) administers the temple, managing rituals and enforcing traditional practices.

Economic Impact of the Sabarimala Pilgrimage

The Sabarimala pilgrimage is a major economic driver for Kerala, generating approximately INR 500 crore annually through tourism and allied sectors, according to the Kerala Tourism Department (2023). The temple attracts over 50 million devotees during the Mandala-Makaravilakku season (November to January), supporting around 20,000 temporary workers and local businesses.

• Kerala’s 2023-24 budget allocated INR 150 crore for pilgrimage infrastructure development to improve facilities and manage crowds.
• The Travancore Devaswom Board operates with an annual budget of around INR 100 crore for temple administration.
• Post-2018 verdict, a 15% decline in pilgrim footfall was reported in 2019-20, impacting local economies (Kerala Tourism Statistics, 2020).
• Annual expenditure on pilgrimage-related insurance and safety measures is estimated at INR 30 crore.

Role of Key Institutions in the Sabarimala Dispute

The Supreme Court adjudicates constitutional validity and fundamental rights, while the Ministry of Law and Justice articulates the Centre’s legal position emphasizing public morality. The Travancore Devaswom Board manages temple affairs and enforces customs. The Kerala State Government handles law enforcement and public order during pilgrimage seasons. The National Commission for Women advocates for gender justice in religious spaces, and the Kerala Tourism Department oversees economic and infrastructural aspects.

• Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict balanced religious freedom with gender equality.
• Kerala Government’s law enforcement faced challenges maintaining peace amid protests.
• NCW has filed petitions supporting women’s entry rights.
• TDB’s administration reflects traditional religious norms, often conflicting with judicial directives.

Comparative Analysis: India and Saudi Arabia on Religious Access and Public Morality

Policy Gaps and Challenges in Reconciling Religious Freedom with Public Morality

The Sabarimala dispute exposes a critical policy gap: absence of a uniform framework defining and applying 'public morality' in religious contexts. This ambiguity results in inconsistent enforcement and prolonged litigation. Neither judiciary nor executive has established clear parameters, leading to conflicting interpretations of constitutional rights versus societal norms.

• Judicial activism in religious matters risks alienating faith communities.
• Executive hesitancy to enforce Supreme Court verdicts undermines rule of law.
• Public morality remains a subjective and evolving concept without statutory clarity.
• Gender justice in religious spaces continues to face resistance from traditionalist groups.

Way Forward

• Develop a statutory framework clarifying the scope of public morality in religious matters, ensuring consistency in enforcement.
• Promote dialogue between religious authorities, judiciary, and civil society to harmonize constitutional rights and traditional practices.
• Strengthen institutional mechanisms to implement Supreme Court directives, protecting gender rights without undermining religious sentiments.
• Enhance infrastructure and security during pilgrimages to mitigate economic losses and ensure public order.

Jharkhand & JPSC Relevance

• JPSC Paper: Paper 2 - Indian Constitution and Governance, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
• Jharkhand Angle: Issues of religious freedom and gender equality resonate in Jharkhand’s tribal and religious communities, where traditional customs sometimes conflict with constitutional mandates.
• Mains Pointer: Frame answers highlighting constitutional guarantees, local customary practices, and the role of judiciary in enforcing gender rights within religious contexts.