Sabarimala Temple is a Hindu temple dedicated to Shasta, located in Pathanamthitta District, Kerala, India. Women and girls of reproductive age have traditionally not been permitted to worship there, as Shasta is a celibate deity. In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld this practice, and from then on, women and girls between the ages of 10 and 50 were legally barred from entering the temple.
In September 2018, a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India ruled that all Hindu pilgrims, regardless of gender, could enter the temple. The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that "any exception placed on women because of biological differences violates the Constitution." Specifically, the court held that the ban violated the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to freedom of religion under Article 25.
This verdict led to protests by millions of Ayyappan devotees who opposed the verdict. A month later, about ten female activists attempted to enter the temple despite threats of physical assault but they were unsuccessful. On 2 January 2019, two women successfully entered the temple through a rear gate, prompting priests to close the shrine temporarily for "purification rituals". Sabarimala Reference Hearing is ongoing in the Supreme Court starting from 15 April 2026.
Legend Many legends exist about the god Ayyappan and the creation of the temple.
One legend concerns Ayyappan, the celibate deity of Sabarimala Temple, and the evil demoness Mahishi whom he defeated in battle. Mahishi had been cursed to live the life of a demon until the child born to Shiva and Vishnu defeated her in a battle. Ayyappan, the abandoned son of Shiva and Mohini (a female incarnation of Vishnu), could therefore set her free after defeating her. She transformed into a beautiful woman after her defeat. After the battle, the young woman proposed marriage to Ayyappan. However, he refused, explaining that he had been ordained to go to the forest, live the life of a brahmachari and answer the prayers of devotees. However, the young woman was persistent, so Ayyappan promised to marry her the day "kanni-swamis," or new devotees, stopped visiting Sabarimala Temple. Sabarimala was visited by kanni-swamis every year, and she was not able to marry Ayyappan. The woman is worshipped as the goddess Maalikapurathamma at a neighbouring temple.
History According to the Memoir of the Survey of the Travancore and Cochin States, women of reproductive age had been denied entry to the Sabarimala temple since at least the 19th century. Lieutenants Benjamin Swain Ward and Peter Eyre Conner, who completed the survey at the end of 1820, reported that, at the time, "Old women and young girls may approach the temple, but those who have attained the age of puberty and to a certain time in life are forbidden to approach, as all sexual intercourse in that vicinity is averse to this deity (Lord Ayyappa)."
Before 1991, when the Kerala High Court forbade the entry of women to Sabarimala, many women had visited the temple, although mostly for non-religious reasons. There are records of women pilgrims visiting the temple to conduct the first rice-feeding ceremony of their children (called Chorounu) at the temple premises. On 13 May 1940, even the Maharani of Thiruvithamkoor visited the temple. In 1986, when young actresses Jayashree, Sudha Chandran, Anu, Vadivukkarasi and Manorama danced near the deity at the pathinettam padi (18 steps) for the Tamil movie Nambinar Keduvathillai, a fine of was imposed on each of the actresses and the director. The Devaswom Board, which maintains the temple and premises, was also fined , because it had given the director permission to film at Sabarimala. Former Karnataka minister Jayamala has also claimed to have entered Sabarimala and touched the idol in 1986, when she was a young woman.
In 1990, the Chorounu ceremony for the granddaughter of a former Devaswom commissioner was held at Sabarimala in the presence of female relatives. Following the court case S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore, the high court of Kerala prohibited women and girls between ages 10 and 50 from entering Sabarimala. In 1995, the district collector Valsala Kumari, aged 42, visited the Sabarimala shrine (although she did not climb the pathinettam padi to the inner sanctum) under special permission. Her goal was to obtain first-hand information about the conditions at the temple in connection with her official duties. In doing so, she was the first woman recognised as legitimate by the temple's authorities. In the same year, the local press reported that two young women, possibly wives of VIPs, had entered the shrine despite police oversight. In January 2018, temple authorities made it mandatory for female devotees to provide proof of their age when visiting Sabarimala.
Kerala High Court verdict In 1990, S. Mahendran started a legal petition on the notion that young women were visiting Sabarimala. The verdict was announced in 1991, when Justices K. Paripoornan and K. Balanarayana Marar of the Kerala High Court banned women and girls between 10 and 50 years of age from Sabarimala. They stated that such a restriction was in accordance with tradition. In addition, the High Court directed the Government of Kerala to use police force if necessary to prevent women from entering the temple. The final decision of the court was as follows:
Supreme Court verdict
In 2006, six female members of the Indian Young Lawyers' Association petitioned the Supreme Court of India, asking them to lift the ban on women of reproductive age. They argued that the practice was a violation of their constitutional rights. They also questioned the validity of provisions in the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules Act of 1965.
On 28 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that women of all ages could enter the temple of Sabarimala. The court stated:
The verdict was passed with a 4-1 majority. Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, R. F. Nariman and D. Y. Chandrachud supported the admission of women to the temple, while Justice Indu Malhotra dissented. Indu Malhotra stated that every individual should be allowed to practice their faith regardless of whether the practice is rational or logical. The Supreme Court based their decision on the violation of Article 25 (Clause 1) and Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Worship.
On 14 November 2019, The Supreme Court Constitution Bench referred the review petitions as well as the writ petitions to a larger bench of at least seven judges, to be constituted by the Honourable Chief Justice of India. Larger benches had previously considered similar cases, such as the entry of Muslim women into mosques and the entry of Parsi women married to non-Parsi men into the holy fireplace. The decision to refer the petitions was supported by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra. Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud dissented.
As of April 2026, a 9 judges bench is looking into the larger constitutional questions that popped up during 2019 hearings.
Arguments against the entry of women According to one argument against the entry of women, the prohibition of female worshipers is traditional. Acharya Yugbhushan Suri Maharaj, a Jain acharya, has said that women's entry is a religious issue connected to fundamental rights. Commenting on the Sabarimala debate, he said, "Whether it is Sabarimala or Jharkhand's Shikharji, the agitations are for sanctity...Religion talks about inner belief and sanctity. This should be respected. I am not against the judiciary or the Supreme Court, but they should not overlook the belief of the people." In April 2026, Jainacharya published an article in Law Beat titled "The Unfinished Decolonization: A Power the State Was Never Given," arguing that the Indian State never received a legitimate transfer of authority over the internal governance of Indian religions, as the British Crown held no such spiritual jurisdiction to convey to the Constituent Assembly.
Yoga guru Ravi Shankar also supported the traditional prohibition of women. Others argue that allowing women to enter would disrespect the male deity. J. Sai Deepak, the lawyer representing two women's groups and a devotee sangam in the Supreme Court case, has argued that the deity Ayyappan should be regarded as a person, giving him the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21. When women and girls of reproductive age visit him against his will, the argument follows, it violates Ayyappan's privacy. Some Hindu women believe that Ayyappan himself placed restrictions on women entering the temple because he wanted to be celibate, and the presence of women would distract him from this cause.
A few reporters have pointed out that gender segregation exists in other Hindu temples. Some prominent temples also restrict men's entry. For example, the Brahma temple in Pushkar prevents married men from entering the inner sanctum. Other temples prevent men from entering on certain days.
Some women choose not to enter the temple, believing that it would be an insult to Malikappurathamma's love and sacrifice.
There is also a rule for men who want to pray at the temple; they have to take a vow of celibacy for 4 weeks leading up to their visit. Some argue that female pilgrims will 'distract' the male pilgrims, who follow a 41-day period of strict abstinence from sex. A statement by the president of the Travancore Devaswom Board stated that allowing women into the temple will lead to 'immoral activities' and turn the place into 'a spot for sex tourism, like Thailand'.
Another argument is that the Sabarimala temple is situated at the top of a hill surrounded by mountains and dense forests, which some regard as physically challenging for women to navigate. An official of Sabarimala has pointed out that the lack of adequate sanitation facilities for women would make their journey difficult. Hospital facilities are also sparse.
In the review case 2026 in the Supreme Court Senior advocates like Gopal Subramanium and Aryama Sundaram have argued that a temple is the “abode of the deity". Senior Advocate Subramanium argued for focusing on the scope of Articles 25 and 26 and the balance between individual rights and denominational autonomy. Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that a non-believer has no standing to question customs tied to a temple and deity. A person who does not subscribe to the faith should not litigate against its practices. Justice Nagarathna questioned why courts should go further into “essential religious practice” once a practice is identified as religious rather than secular.
Arguments in favour of the entry of women Those in favour of allowing women entry to the Sabarimala temple concentrate on the specific point that menstruation is not impure, and the more general point that women deserve equal rights. Activists, such as the Dalit public intellectual, Sunny M. Kapicadu, see the struggle as a continuation of Kerala renaissance which sought to undo centuries of caste and gender inequality and oppression. They therefore welcome the verdict as a reaffirmation of constitutional morality.