Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court of India is reviewing the 2018 order allowing women of menstruating age into the temple.
• A nine-judge constitutional bench will decide on women's religious freedom for all major faiths.
• The ruling will address whether women can be denied entry to Parsi and Muslim places of worship.
• Legal experts warn the decision will set a precedent for challenging religious bans on women.

India's Supreme Court is currently hearing petitions that challenge a landmark 2018 order which permitted women of menstruating age to enter the famous Sabarimala temple in the southern state of Kerala. This significant legal proceeding has been convened by Chief Justice Surya Kant, who has established a nine-judge constitutional bench to hear the case. The court's upcoming guidelines are expected to determine broader issues regarding women's religious freedom, potentially deciding if women can be denied entry into Parsi temples and Muslim mosques. Furthermore, the bench will examine the legality of religious leaders excommunicating individuals and the practice of female genital mutilation within the Dawoodi Bohra community.

Legal experts warn that the court's decision will have far-reaching consequences for women's religious freedom and the fundamental right to enter places of worship. The petitions before the court specifically challenge the 2018 Supreme Court judgment that had struck down the ban on women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala shrine. Under traditional Hinduism, menstruating women are often barred from participating in religious rituals, as they are regarded as unclean, and many temples deny entry during this time. While some devout women voluntarily stay away, the Sabarimala temple explicitly prohibits the entry of all women between the ages of 10 and 50. Dedicated to the Hindu deity Lord Ayyappa, the temple attracts millions of male devotees annually, though elderly women and young girls also frequently visit the shrine.

In its 2018 verdict, the top court judges declared that keeping women out was discriminatory and unconstitutional, stating that "the right to practise religion is available to both men and women." However, Indu Malhotra, the only woman on the five-judge bench at the time, dissented with the majority verdict. She argued that "issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily interfered [with] by the court" and that "notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion." The original 2018 verdict sparked massive protests across the state, and women who attempted to enter the shrine were often sent back or, in some instances, faced physical assault.

Following these events, the top court received a significant number of petitions requesting a review of the judgment and the striking down of the 2018 order. The court accepted these review petitions and, in 2019, established a seven-judge bench to hear the case. That bench subsequently decided to widen the ambit of the hearings, including a number of similar cases from other faiths in the review process. Due to the constitutional importance of the issues involved, a new nine-judge bench was established in 2020 to hear the petitions; however, it made no progress due to the outbreak of the Covid pandemic.

Announcing the new bench recently, Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that the hearing would determine "questions of law" regarding the case. The bench includes Justice BV Nagarathna, the lone female judge in the top court who is scheduled to become India's chief justice next year, along with judges drawn from different faiths, castes, and regions. Reports suggest that this careful selection of judges, representing different genders, religions, castes, and regions, will help "lend wider legitimacy to a verdict that will inevitably traverse contested terrain."

Legal experts assert that the decisions taken by this constitutional bench will set a precedent for adjudicating similar cases. In recent years, temples, mosques, and shrines that have cited tradition to keep women out for centuries have faced unprecedented challenges from women's groups. These groups argue that denying entry violates fundamental rights. Court cases have also been filed regarding the denial of entry to Parsi women married to non-Parsis in fire temples and the practice of female genital mutilation in the small community of Dawoodi Bohras.

Supreme Court of India to Determine Precedent on Temple Entry

The Supreme Court of India is now poised to issue a ruling that will fundamentally reshape the intersection of religious tradition and constitutional rights. By hearing challenges to the Sabarimala temple ruling and examining similar cases across multiple faiths, the court is addressing the core question of whether religious traditions can justify the exclusion of women. If the court upholds the 2018 order or expands its scope, it could validate the right of women to enter any place of worship regardless of tradition. Conversely, if the court upholds traditional bans, it could legitimize exclusionary practices in Parsi and Muslim communities as well. The outcome will likely define the future of women's religious freedom in India, setting a binding precedent for religious organizations to either adapt to modern constitutional standards or face legal challenges. As the nine-judge bench deliberates, the legal landscape for religious entry and gender equality in India hangs in the balance, promising a verdict with deep implications for millions of believers and the nation's secular fabric.