Entry Ban Not Absolute Restriction, Preserves Deity's Celibate Character: Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti To Supreme Court In Sabarimala Case

As the Supreme Court commences hearings before a nine-judge Constitution Bench on April 7, 2026, the Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti has moved an intervention application seeking to safeguard the "lived realities" of Hindu traditions from judicial overreach.

The Samiti, representing 127 sects of Sanatan Dharma, contends that secular courts lack the specialized expertise to determine "Essential Religious Practices" and argues that the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 cannot be used to dismantle the specific protections granted to religious faith under Article 25.

Central to their plea is the assertion that the restriction on women of a specific age group at the Sabarimala Temple is a mandatory ritual requirement to preserve the Naishtika Brahmachari (celibate) character of Lord Ayyappa, rather than an act of social exclusion.

The Applicant, Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, states, "Historically, this temple has restriction on women of menstruating age (10-50 years). This is based on the belief that the deity is a Naishtika Brahmachari (celibate) and worshippers must observe 41 days of strict purification, which the tradition believes that it is difficult for women during this phase...This religious practice should also be protected under Article 25 of the constitution of India. This restriction cannot be said to be absolute restriction for a women, it is restricted for a particular age and therefore it is not violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India."

"It is submitted that the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 cannot override Article 25 of the constitution of India, which guarantees every individual the right to profess, practice and propagate their faith. It is submitted that Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion...The Courts should not determine the Essential Religious Practices because the court is not an expert in religious matter/practice. The Courts should step in only when such religious practice violates public order, morality or health", it adds.

The Applicant seeks to intervene specifically to assist the Court on Reference No. 5 regarding the scope of judicial review in religious matters. As a representative body of practitioners, the Samiti aims to provide necessary theological and factual context to ensure that the eventual adjudication reflects the lived realities of Hindu traditions without causing prejudice to the parties involved, it says.

The plea says, "It is submitted that Religion is a matter of faith, and religious beliefs are held to be sacred by those who share the same faith. Thought, faith and belief are internal, while expression and worship are external manifestations thereof. It is submitted that the phrase "equally entitled to", as it occurs in Article 25(1), must mean that each devotee is equally entitled to profess, practise and propagate his religion, as per the tenets of that religion."

It is submitted that religion is fundamentally a matter of internal faith and external worship. The Applicant contends that the phrase "equally entitled to" in Article 25(1) must be interpreted as an individual's right to practice religion according to the specific tenets of that faith. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that the right to equality under Article 14 should not be applied in a manner that overrides the specific religious protections guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26.

A central submission of the Applicant is that secular courts are not experts in religious matters or complex rituals. Therefore, the "Essential Religious Practices" of a faith should ideally be determined by religious scholars and practitioners rather than the judiciary. The Court’s intervention should be limited to instances where a practice demonstrably violates public order, health, or morality.

The Applicant highlights that Hindu temples are categorized into Private (Ghar Mandir), Social (Public), and Tantra temples. Each follows distinct protocols. For instance, Tantra temples like Kamakhya or Kalighat involve esoteric rituals where access is restricted to specific practitioners at specific times. The Applicant submits that such restrictions are not discriminatory but are essential components of the temple’s spiritual character, protected under Article 25.

"It is respectful submission of the applicant that court should not interfere in the Puja Paddhati/Method of worship and procedure for performing Hindu rituals of any temple and it should be left open to Pujari/religious scholar to decide...In Hindu temples, pavitrta means pure, sacred, or sanctified. Temple worship involves physical and mental purification. Ritual purification procedures for worship vary across traditions", it says.

The restriction on women of a certain age group at the Sabarimala Temple is presented not as a form of social exclusion, but as a necessary practice to preserve the Naishtika Brahmachari (celibate) nature of the deity, Lord Ayyappa. The Applicant notes that Lord Ayyappa is worshipped in different forms in thousands of other temples where no such restrictions exist, proving that the practice at Sabarimala is specific to the "Prathishtha" (installation) of that particular shrine.

"It is submitted that exclusion of women in Sabarimala Temple is not absolute. It is limited to a particular age group in one particular temple, with the view to preserve the character of the deity. Women outside the age group of 10 to 50 years are entitled to worship at the Sabarimala Temple. The usage and practise is important to preserve the sacred character of the deity", says.

It states, "A celibate form of a temple is a sacred space dedicated to a deity who is worshipped as a Naishtika Brahmachari (lifelong celibate), often requiring strict adherence to purity vows. e.g. Sabarimala temple (Lord Ayyappa). The deity is portrayed as having withdrawn from household life (samsara), focusing spiritual energy on asceticism (vairagya) rather than partnership...It is submitted that the issues involved in the petition have far-reaching ramifications and implications, not only for the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, but for all places of worship of various religions in this country, which have their own faith, beliefs, practices, customs and usages, which may be considered to be exclusionary in nature. The issues which are matters of deep religious faith and sentiment, should not be interfered with by the courts."

The application relies on settled law which recognize that sub-sects of the Hindu religion can constitute "religious denominations." It further cites the Durgah Committee case to argue that while "superstitious beliefs" aren't protected, practices that form an integral part of the religion—as evidenced by long-standing tradition—must be shielded from judicial scrutiny.

It also adds, "It is submitted that the restriction on entry of women is a part of the essential practice of Sabarimala Temple. The limited restriction on the entry of women from 10 to 50 years, in the Sabarimala Temple is a matter of "religion" and "religious faith and practice", and the fundamental principles underlying the "prathishtha" (installation) of the Sabarimala Temple, as well as the custom and usage of worship of the deity Lord Ayyappa."

The Applicant concludes that a religious denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in matters of deciding what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of that religion. The only restriction imposed is on the exercise of the right being subject to public order, morality and health under Article 26. Article 26 refers not only to religious denominations, but also to sects thereof. Article 26 guarantees that every religious denomination, or sect thereof, shall have the right inter alia to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. This right is made subject to public order, morality and health, it says.

Recently, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has submitted that religions may have different practices related to different aspects within the same religion, and the courts must not attempt to judicially determine the nature of religious practices.

The State of Kerala has also recently filed its submissions in the matter. It has been said that any judicial interference into long-standing religious practices must only occur after wide-ranging consultations with eminent religious scholars and reputed social reformers of that specific faith.

It was also said that a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group has sufficient interest in questioning a practice of that religious group or religious denomination by way of a public interest litigation.

The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) has also filed its Written Submissions in the Sabarimala case and has submitted before the Supreme Court that the Court is bound to accept the belief of the community, and it is not for the Court to sit in judgment on that belief.

Cause Title: Kantaru Rejeevaru Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association; Sabarimala Custom Protection Forum Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association [R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P. (C) No. 373/2006]