Sabarimala Reference| Entry Of Women Will Have To Be In Sync With Characteristic Of Deity, Which Is Integral To Core Of Worship: Senior Advocate VV Giri Submits
VV Giri was appearing for Sabarimala Temple Thanthri-Kandararu Rajeevaru.
Senior Advocate V. V. Giri submitted before the 9-judge Constitution Bench that the right to worship under Article 25(1) is not an absolute right of access, but one that must be "in sync" with the specific characteristics of the deity. He argued that since idol worship is an integral part, the unique identity of a deity—such as the Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate) nature of Lord Ayyappa—forms the core of the worship conducted at the shrine.
Giri contended that a devotee's right to practice their religion cannot be claimed in "antagonism" to these foundational principles, as the spiritual integrity of the temple is maintained by traditional Agamic rules that define the relationship between the creator and the creation.
On the last date of hearing, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for an intervenor, also argued for a fundamental shift in how the Indian State interacts with faith. He contended that the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine has mutated from a simple inquiry into a "total collapse" test, forcing the judiciary to act as a theological body—a role he insisted judges are ill-equipped to perform. Dhavan proposed replacing this intrusive audit with a "Threshold Test" that verifies only the bona fide sincerity and institutional roots of a religious claim, rather than its "essentiality" or scientific rationality.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing review petitions and writ petitions arising out of the 2018 Sabarimala Judgment, which allowed women of all ages to enter into Lord Ayyappa's temple. The pleas were filed, inter alia, regarding the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, and the rights of Parsi women to enter Fire Temples if they have married outside their community and the legal validity of female genital mutilation within the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Senior Advocate VV Giri submitted, "The right under Article 25(1) is a constitutional right to practice the religion which I profess. It is based on the inalienable principle that I can do as I want... When I practice a religion, I should believe—if I am a believer—in the core principles and the practices of the religion. I cannot claim a right under Article 25(1) in derogation of or in antagonism to the core beliefs of the religion which I profess and which I seek to practice; I cannot do it in antagonism to that. And the right under Article 25(1), even for entry, will have to be in sync with the core principles of this... it has to be in sync with the characteristics of the deity, which is an integral part of the deity, which is an integral part of the core of the worship."
Senior Advocate VV Giri, appearing for Sabarimala Temple Thanthri-Kandararu Rajeevaru, started his submissions by stating the historical and factual background of the temple and Lord Ayappa. Then he referred to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
He said, "25(2)(b) it enables a state from providing for a law, for not only social welfare and reform but also throwing open the Hindu religious institutions of a public character..."
He added, "But every temple, my Lord, every temple has its separate characteristics because every deity has its characteristics...When idol worship is therefore an integral part of the faith of Hinduism, and the idol therefore gets transformed into a deity and the deity has a characteristic...on that there cannot be any dispute that idol worship, worshipping a deity in a temple is therefore part of the core beliefs which Hindus believe in..then in such cases, the essential characteristics of the deity is therefore part of the worship that is conducted in the temple."
Justice Nagarathna said, "You are saying on the touchstone of essential religious test, it cannot be touched. And if there is a dispute then courts will look into it. Morning there was a submission that do away with essential religious practice."
Giri replied, "No no, I don't want to jettison it altogether."
Justice Amanullah said, "Belief includes the manifestation as well as to how to exercise it. Building a temple is also a part of manifestation."
Giri submitted that the sanctity of the Agamas (traditional scripts governing temple rituals) and the intrinsic link between a believer's right to worship and the specific nature of the deity's consecration. He argued that temple rituals are not mere ceremonies but precise spiritual requirements that, if violated, result in the departure of the divine essence from the idol.
He emphasized that in Vaishnavite temples, the rules of the Vaikantha Shastra are absolute, restricting the performance of puja and the touching of idols exclusively to those born of specific Rishi traditions.
Giri argued that any state intervention that permits an "unauthorized" person to touch the deity—even a high-ranking pontiff from a different sect—constitutes a violent interference with the religious faith of the worshippers. He maintained that such an act is viewed as a defilement or pollution of the image, which renders the state action prima facie invalid under Article 25. For the believer, the Archaka (priest) is not merely a service provider but a vital link in maintaining the spiritual integrity of the sacred space.
Addressing the nature of the right to worship, Giri proposed that the freedom granted under Article 25(1) is not an unconditional right of access but one that must be "in sync" with the characteristics of the deity. He contended that a person cannot claim a protected right to enter a temple if they do not believe in the specific concepts and practices of that shrine. In this view, the right to worship is intrinsically tied to the sanctity of the deity’s consecration, making the traditional rules of the temple "out of bounds" for individual legal challenge.
Responding to queries from Justice Bagchi and Justice Varale regarding rational dissent within a faith, Giri distinguished between the freedom of conscience and the discipline of a denomination. While an individual is free to be a Hindu without visiting a temple, Giri argued that entering a consecrated space requires submission to its established tenets. He suggested that any change to ancient practices should stem from an "inner churning" within the denomination itself, rather than a judicial decree prompted by a believer who seeks to challenge the core tenets of their own community.
Justice Amanullah submitted, "This is an extreme example...When you move so far down the path of faith and belief, I go to a temple, my fundamental belief is that he is the Lord, he is my creator, he has created me, right? I go hundred percent. I am totally devoted, absolutely nothing impure in my heart. I go there. And there I am told that because of a birth, a lineage, a certain situation, permanently you are not allowed to touch the deity. Now, will the Constitution not come to the rescue,here cannot be a difference between the creator and creation. In fact, you are right, how we do it for certain periods. Suppose I am going and somebody throws mud on me, I fall in the mud. I clean myself, I have to be in a decent position to approach the deity in a pure way. That you can decide. Purification means accept it or take this or whatever it is. But then the permanent disability that I cannot touch my creator, I am the strongest believer of that particular deity, he is my creator, will the Constitution not come? Because ultimately what you are projecting is that he is the God, but the creation will not be able to touch his creator. To what extent will you limit it? When you say that because of birth, somebody cannot do it, he cannot change it. In this lifetime, he cannot change that position. So why only an Archika? Why should the Constitution not come in the way? And how does it defile the deity just because you think it should.... Why?...permanent disqualification on this basis...something on which I have no control?...I cannot change my future even if I want to..."
Giri responded, "That would be invalid, but if the religion has evolved in such a way..."
Justice BV Nagarathna said, "Practices associated with a particular deity, involves certain Agamas, a certain way of worship, etc., one of which may be that persons who are qualified to do that worship only can do that worship, therefore a believer believes that only certain persons with qualifications can do that worship, and the benefit of that worship the believer also gets...It is not necessary, in some Shiva temples you say “Om Namah Shivaya”, you can put water on the lingam. In other temples, you cannot. There are various practices. In other temples, you are not permitted to touch, because that is part of what is called anushthanas, or the practice, or whatever it is. Nothing to do with untouchability as such that is part of the Anushthanas, it has nothing to do with untouchability...these are the facets."
Giri clarified that while denominational traditions are vital, they do not exist in a constitutional vacuum, particularly regarding the appointment of priests. He acknowledged that if a "complete ban" exists where individuals are barred from the priesthood solely by reason of birth—despite being properly instructed in the Shastras—the State has the power to intervene.
Giri identified two primary avenues for addressing birth-based restrictions in the priesthood: 1. Article 25(2)(b)- The State can enact legislation for social welfare and reform, specifically to open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus. 2. State Intervention: He suggested that the State itself could step in to ensure that merit and scriptural training are not permanently eclipsed by lineage.
On the last date of hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Travancore Devaswom Board, contended before the 9-judge Bench that the exclusion of women aged 10–50 from the Sabarimala Temple is not an act of discrimination, but a valid classification rooted in the unique identity of the deity. He distinguished Sabarimala from approximately 999 other Ayyappa temples, noting that only this specific shrine depicts the Lord as a Naishtika Brahmachari (an eternal celibate student).
Previously, during the hearing of the Sabarimala Reference, when Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted the "Eclipsing" of Individual Rights of a non-believer by denominational rules, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for devotees' organisations in Kerala, submitted that individual freedom of conscience cannot defeat the freedom of community or the denomination.
On April 7, 2026, the 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, commenced the landmark hearing on the Sabarimala reference. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, led the arguments with a direct challenge to the 2018 verdict and the current judicial approach to religious practices.
On April 8, 2026, concluding its submissions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that secular courts lack the "scholarly competence" to sit in judgment over the validity or rationality of religious faith. He also called for total abandonment of the "Constitutional Morality" doctrine as a basis for judicial review. He argued that the Courts should never test, either a legislative enactment or an administrative act, based on vague concepts that are capable of elastic interpretation, which is both subjective and individualistic.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna pointed out that the challenge was not brought by devotees of Lord Ayyappa, but by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, a group with no direct association with the temple’s faith or practices.
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]