Kerala HC Upholds Restrictions on Sabarimala Forest Route, Says Trek Not Essential Religious Practice [Read Judgment]

Kerala: The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition seeking early opening of the traditional forest route to the Sabarimala temple, ruling that environmental protection and pilgrim safety constitute reasonable restrictions on religious freedom, and that the mode of accessing a temple cannot be treated as an essential religious practice.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, in a judgment dated November 13, 2025, addressed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 41785 of 2025 filed by V. Shyamohan, a Delhi-based lawyer and devotee of Lord Ayyappa.

The petitioner, who had secured a Virtual Queue e-pass for darshan on November 17, 2025, challenged the lack of advance notification regarding the opening of the Traditional Route (Kanana Patha) from Erumeli to Sannidhanam. He contended that authorities indicated the route would open only on November 17, making it impossible for pilgrims with e-passes for the same day to complete the eight-hour forest trek spanning 35–45 kilometres.

Dr. Mathew Kuzhalnadan, representing the petitioner, argued that the failure to notify the route opening in advance violated pilgrims’ rights under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution, amounting to unreasonable restrictions on religious freedom.

The Government Pleader and Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board emphasized that the Sabarimala temple is situated deep within the Periyar Tiger Reserve, an ecologically sensitive area of national importance housing tigers, elephants, bison, wild boar, bears, and leopards. They explained that opening the route requires extensive coordination among multiple departments and the preparation of eco-friendly camping facilities at eight Thavalams operated by Eco-Development Committees along the traditional trek route.

The court was informed that the decision to open the Kanana Patha on November 17, 2025—coinciding with the temple opening—followed comprehensive inter-departmental consultation with District Collectors and the Forest Department, in accordance with the approved Tiger Conservation Plan (2022–2032).

Referencing the tragic 2011 stampede that claimed hundreds of lives, authorities stressed the necessity of multi-departmental coordination involving police, health services, forest guards, fire and rescue teams, and the NDRF to ensure pilgrim safety.

The Division Bench observed that the issue stood squarely covered by its earlier ruling in C.N. Madhusoodanan v. State of Kerala, which held that restrictions on trekking through forest routes are essential for pilgrim safety and conservation of the Reserve.

Expressing environmental concerns, the court noted: “When groups comprising hundreds of pilgrims move through this sensitive terrain, serious damage is caused to the Periyar Tiger Reserve. Notwithstanding intensive monitoring, pilgrims may stray from designated paths, engage in cooking, construct temporary resting places using twigs and other forest produce, disturb wildlife, and carry non-biodegradable materials such as plastic.”

The bench also highlighted documented instances of elephants dying after ingesting plastic waste and numerous human–animal conflicts resulting in pilgrim fatalities, underscoring the grave environmental and safety consequences of unregulated access.

On the constitutional question, the court held: “The Reserve Forest is not a transit route. It is a living ecosystem that the State is constitutionally bound to conserve.”

Addressing the religious freedom argument, Justice Vijayaraghavan stated: “We are not persuaded by the petitioner’s contention that the deferment of the opening of the ‘Kanana Patha’ infringes upon his religious freedom. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but it is subject to public order, morality, and health.”

In a significant observation on essential religious practices, the court held: “The avowed desire of the pilgrim is to have darshan of Lord Ayyappa and perform the holy rituals. The mode of reaching the temple can be seen as a means to an end, not the end itself.”

The bench emphasized: “The vast majority of Ayyappa devotees today reach Sabarimala by other routes without any doctrinal impropriety, which would mean that while the traditional route is hallowed by custom, it is not mandated by any religious tenets or scriptures.”

Categorically ruling on the legal position, the court held: “Under no circumstances can the mode of access to a temple be construed as an essential religious practice.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nar Hari Sastri v. Shri Badrinath Temple Committee, the bench noted that temple authorities possess the competence to regulate visiting hours and enforce rules ensuring good order, decency of worship, and prevention of overcrowding.

The court directed authorities to determine and notify the maximum carrying capacity for the traditional route, stating: “The term ‘carrying capacity’ would mean the maximum number of pilgrims who can be accommodated at any given time or per hour without causing unacceptable risks to life, public order, or the environment.”

Invoking the Precautionary Principle, the Division Bench advised respondents to publish computed carrying capacities before each pilgrimage season, issue dynamic advisories when crowd densities approach cautionary thresholds, employ real-time monitoring systems, and maintain an integrated control room linking all concerned departments.

Concluding by connecting environmental protection with spiritual ethos, Justice Vijayaraghavan invoked the sacred chant Tat Tvam Asi from the Chandogya Upanishad, stating: “The principle of ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ enjoins reverence for all forms of life, emphasizing unity and interconnectedness between human beings, nature, and the divine. Protecting the forest and preserving the sanctity of the Periyar Tiger Reserve therefore harmonize with, rather than contradict, the spiritual philosophy that underpins Lord Ayyappa’s abode at Sabarimala.”

Case Title: V. Shyamohan vs. State of Kerala & Ors.

[Read Judgment]