Sabarimala review petitions

Sabarimala review petitions
Name	Sabarimala review petitions
Court	Supreme Court of India
Full name	Review petitions against the 2018 Supreme Court judgment on Sabarimala
Date filed	2018–2020
Citations	(multiple review petitions consolidated)
Judges	Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Kurian Joseph (original bench)
Related	Sabarimala Temple, Travancore Devaswom Board, Indian Penal Code

Sabarimala review petitions

The Sabarimala review petitions are a suite of legal challenges filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking reconsideration of the 2018 judgment that addressed entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Temple. The petitions were lodged by religious bodies, devotees, litigants, and state actors, raising questions about religious freedom under the Constitution of India, the interpretation of customs, and the scope of judicial review. Proceedings traversed complex intersections of Hinduism, constitutional law, and public order, drawing sustained attention from political parties, civil society, and international media.

Background and legal context

The dispute centers on practices at Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board, where a traditional prohibition restricted entry to women aged approximately 10–50. Petitions invoking provisions of the Constitution of India—notably the fundamental rights in Articles invoking Article 25 and Article 26—and statutes concerning religious endowments culminated in the litigation that reached the Supreme Court of India. Earlier jurisprudence on religious practices included rulings such as Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, and precedents from benches hearing matters related to Ayodhya dispute and rulings by judges like V. R. Krishna Iyer and Ruma Pal influenced arguments about customs and gender equality.

Supreme Court verdict (2018) and immediate aftermath

On 28 September 2018 a five-judge bench delivered a majority verdict holding that the exclusion of women constituted unconstitutional discrimination, invoking principles from cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and referencing equality jurisprudence in Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. The decision prompted immediate reactions in Kerala Legislative Assembly, by the Bharatiya Janata Party, Indian National Congress, and regional entities such as Communist Party of India (Marxist), leading to protests at Sabarimala and injunctions by district magistrates. Several parties moved to the Supreme Court seeking review under the Court’s review jurisdiction and raising public order concerns similar to petitions in matters like the Mandal Commission unrest.

Review petitions: filings and principal arguments

Review petitions were filed by a range of actors including the Travancore Devaswom Board, veteran litigants such as Harippad Sree Subramania Swamy (names illustrative of devotees and representative bodies), political office-holders in Kerala High Court petitions, and organizations like Sangh Parivar-associated groups. Principal arguments invoked ancient customs recognized in texts like the Manusmriti (cited contextually), the autonomy of religious denominations under Article 26, and limits of judicial interference in matters of doctrine as framed in precedents such as Sri Venkataramanaswami v. State of Mysore. Petitioners contended that the majority had misapplied the test for essential religious practices and exceeded the Court’s remedial ambit, urging reliance on earlier tests articulated in cases like The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. L. S. Narayanasami.

Constitutional and religious law issues raised

Reviewers pressed constitutional questions regarding the harmonization of Article 14 (equality), Article 25 (freedom of conscience and religion), and Article 26 (religious denominations). They debated the essentiality doctrine, referencing jurisprudence from benches that decided on Akhand Jyoti-type traditions and rulings concerning Religious Freedom of Dalits and Scheduled Castes matters. Doctrinal disputes addressed whether customs pre-dating the Constitution of India enjoy protection, and whether judicial intervention infringed upon the internal management rights of religious institutions as discussed in cases like Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala and Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Seva Samajam-related filings.

Proceedings and judgments on review petitions

The Supreme Court managed consolidation and constitution of benches to hear multiple petitions; some review pleas were admitted, while others were tagged with curative-petition principles akin to the process in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu. Oral arguments featured counsel representing the State of Kerala, the Union of India, religious boards, and intervenors including Amicus curiae submissions from jurists. Interim measures at times included status quo orders and police deployment decisions influenced by judgments in public order matters like S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram. Subsequent judgments and modified orders reflected divisions within the Court, culminating in directions to form larger benches to reassess the essentiality test and reconcile competing precedents.

Political, social, and public responses

Responses spanned political mobilization by parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Indian National Congress, while civil society groups including women's rights organizations and traditionalist collectives staged demonstrations. Protests at Sabarimala prompted debates in the Kerala Police and the National Human Rights Commission on protection of pilgrims, and prompted interventions by the President of India and legislative debates in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. International attention included coverage by global media outlets and statements by diaspora organizations, echoing controversies seen in other faith-related litigations like the Shah Bano case.

Impact and subsequent developments

The review proceedings influenced subsequent jurisprudence on the essentiality doctrine, the limits of judicial review in religious affairs, and legislative responses by state legislatures and religious trusts such as the Travancore Devaswom Board. The matter prompted renewed scholarship in law schools like National Law School of India University and policy discussions in forums including the Law Commission of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association. Outcomes affected pilgrimage administration at Sabarimala and catalyzed broader debates on gender equality and faith rights across India, with continuing litigation, academic commentary, and legislative proposals shaping the post-decision landscape.

Category:Religion and law in India