The long-standing constitutional dispute over women’s entry into the hill shrine of Sabarimala Temple has once again reached the centre of judicial scrutiny, with Hamid Dabholkar, son of slain rationalist Narendra Dabholkar, approaching the Supreme Court of India seeking permission to intervene in the ongoing review proceedings.
In his intervention plea, Hamid Dabholkar along with social activist Nandini Jadhav has strongly defended the Court’s landmark 2018 verdict that permitted women of all age groups to enter the temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The applicants contend that the traditional prohibition on women between the ages of 10 and 50 amounts to gender discrimination and cannot be justified under the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.
The intervention application argues that excluding women on the basis of biological characteristics such as menstruation directly violates the constitutional principles of equality and dignity. According to the applicants, the practice entrenches patriarchal notions that stigmatise menstruation and thereby undermines the transformative ethos of the Constitution.
The controversy traces its origins to the historic 2018 ruling in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, where a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the centuries-old restriction on women’s entry to the temple.
By a 4:1 majority, the Court held that the ban violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including:
- Article 14 – equality before law
- Article 15 – prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex
- Article 25 – freedom of religion
The majority concluded that devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to enforce such exclusionary practices. The Court also found that the restriction failed the constitutional test of an “essential religious practice”, meaning it could not claim immunity from judicial review.
In a notable concurring opinion, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud underscored that customs which deny women equal dignity cannot be shielded under the guise of religious tradition. He observed that the Constitution envisions a transformative framework where entrenched social practices must give way to fundamental rights.
Following the judgment, numerous review petitions were filed challenging the ruling. In 2019, the Supreme Court decided to refer broader constitutional questions relating to religious freedom and equality to a nine-judge bench.
The reference aims to examine the scope of the “essential religious practices” doctrine and its interaction with fundamental rights, a debate that extends beyond Sabarimala and touches other contentious issues involving faith and gender equality.
The upcoming hearings are expected to revisit whether courts can scrutinise long-standing religious customs and determine their compatibility with constitutional guarantees.
In their plea, the interveners emphasise that the dispute must be viewed through the lens of constitutional morality, a doctrine that requires state institutions to uphold fundamental rights even when they conflict with traditional social practices.
Hamid Dabholkar is associated with the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, an anti-superstition organisation founded by his father Narendra Dabholkar, who was assassinated in 2013 for his activism against superstition and social orthodoxy.
The intervention application argues that the constitutional commitment to scientific temper, equality, and dignity enshrined in the Constitution cannot coexist with practices that stigmatise women on the basis of menstruation. It further states that courts have a duty to ensure that religious freedoms are not invoked to perpetuate systemic discrimination.
The Sabarimala case has evolved into one of the most consequential constitutional debates in modern Indian jurisprudence. At its core lies a difficult question: how should the Constitution reconcile religious autonomy with the promise of gender equality?
While supporters of the temple entry verdict view it as a milestone for women’s rights and constitutional transformation, critics argue that judicial intervention in religious customs risks undermining the autonomy of faith communities.
With the matter once again before the Supreme Court, the intervention by Hamid Dabholkar adds a strong civil-liberties perspective to the proceedings. As the Court prepares to revisit the issue, the case continues to represent a broader constitutional struggle between tradition and equality, faith and fundamental rights.
