Supreme Court Initiates Review of 2018 Sabarimala Verdict

On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of India commenced hearings on review petitions challenging its landmark 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) 11 SCC 1. The original verdict permitted entry of women aged 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala Temple, overturning a centuries-old ban based on religious customs. The review petitions, filed by 49 petitioners including religious groups and devotees, contest the Court's interpretation of the 'essential religious practices' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950. This judicial re-examination highlights the tension between constitutional guarantees of gender equality and religious freedom.

Constitutional Framework Governing Religious Freedom and Gender Equality

Articles 25 and 26 safeguard freedom of religion and empower religious denominations to manage their own affairs. Article 25(1) guarantees all persons the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion subject to public order, morality, and health. Article 26 grants denominations rights to manage religious institutions. However, these rights are subject to other fundamental rights, notably Article 14 (Equality before law). The 2018 judgment applied the 'Essential Religious Practices Doctrine' from Shirur Mutt (1954) SCR 1005, which restricts religious practices that violate constitutional morality.

• The 2018 verdict held the ban on women aged 10-50 as discriminatory and not an essential religious practice.
• The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 underlines the constitutional commitment to abolish untouchability and related social discriminations, reinforcing gender equality.
• The review petitions argue that the Court misapplied the essentiality test and interfered with religious autonomy.

Economic Impact of Sabarimala Pilgrimage and Entry Restrictions

Sabarimala attracts approximately 50 million pilgrims annually, generating over ₹2000 crore per year through donations and local commerce (Kerala Tourism Department, 2023). The pilgrimage season, especially the Mandala-Makaravilakku period, increases economic activity in Pathanamthitta district by 15-20% (Kerala Economic Review, 2023). Restrictions on women’s entry affect local businesses including hospitality, transport, and retail sectors. The Kerala government allocates ₹150 crore annually for law and order during the pilgrimage (Kerala Police, 2023), reflecting the high administrative costs linked to managing large crowds and protests.

• Only around 2,000 women entered the temple in the first year post-judgment, indicating social resistance (The Hindu, 2019).
• Economic disruptions during protests against women’s entry have caused short-term losses to local stakeholders.
• Religious tourism is a significant source of employment and revenue for the region.

Role of Key Institutions in the Sabarimala Controversy

The Supreme Court of India is the apex judicial authority adjudicating constitutional validity and balancing fundamental rights. The Kerala State Government oversees temple administration and law enforcement during pilgrimage. The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) is the statutory body managing Sabarimala operations. The Ministry of Law and Justice monitors legal frameworks, while the National Commission for Women (NCW) advocates for gender rights within religious contexts.

• The Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict set a precedent on judicial intervention in religious customs.
• The Kerala government has faced challenges balancing law and order with constitutional mandates.
• The TDB’s role is critical in implementing Court orders and managing temple affairs.
• The NCW has supported gender equality in religious practices, influencing public discourse.

Comparative Judicial Approaches: India and Nepal

The Sabarimala case parallels debates in Nepal over gender-based restrictions at the Pashupatinath Temple. Traditionally, women are barred during menstruation. The Supreme Court of Nepal in 2018 ruled against blanket bans, citing gender equality under the Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007. This led to partial relaxation but ongoing contestations persist. The Nepalese judiciary’s approach contrasts with India’s, emphasizing constitutional equality while cautiously respecting religious customs.

Structural Gaps in Judicial Handling of Religious and Gender Rights

The ongoing review exposes the lack of a uniform, clear framework to define 'essential religious practices.' This ambiguity leads to inconsistent rulings and prolonged litigations, undermining social harmony and governance. The judiciary’s balancing act between Articles 25/26 and Article 14 remains unsettled, especially regarding gender justice in religious contexts. The absence of legislative clarity compounds judicial challenges.

• Essential Religious Practices Doctrine lacks precise criteria, causing interpretative conflicts.
• Judicial pronouncements oscillate between upholding religious autonomy and enforcing constitutional morality.
• Prolonged litigation fuels social polarization and enforcement difficulties.

Significance and Way Forward

• Establishing clear legislative guidelines on religious practices vis-à-vis fundamental rights can reduce judicial burden.
• Judiciary should develop a consistent test for essentiality that respects both gender equality and religious freedom.
• State governments and temple boards must engage in dialogue with stakeholders to facilitate peaceful compliance.
• Public awareness campaigns can address social resistance by explaining constitutional rights and judicial rationale.

Jharkhand & JPSC Relevance

• JPSC Paper: Paper 2 – Indian Polity and Governance, Fundamental Rights
• Jharkhand Angle: Jharkhand has diverse religious communities with gender-related customary practices; judicial precedents like Sabarimala influence state-level policy on gender rights in religious contexts.
• Mains Pointer: Frame answers highlighting constitutional rights, judicial balancing, and implications for social harmony in Jharkhand’s pluralistic society.