38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, January 11, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Supreme Court Allows Entry Of Women Into Sabarimala Temple

By LawStreet News Network      28 September, 2018 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Supreme Court Allows Entry Of Women Into Sabarimala Temple

The Supreme Court today (September 28, 2018) by 4:1 majority has struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, to allow entry of women, irrespective of their age, into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala.

A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and JusticesRohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra held that Rule 3(b) of 1965 Rules which bars entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala temple is a clear violation of right of Hindu women to practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench delivered four judgments, CJI Misra wrote a judgment on behalf of himself and Justice Khanwilkar, Justices Chandrachud and Nariman wrote a concurring judgment each, while Justice Malhotra wrote a dissenting opinion.

CJI Misra held in his judgment that Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the 1965 Act under which it was framed because the bar of entry of women between the age of 10 and 50 years is not an essential part of the religion.

Devotees of Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination, CJI Misra said.

Justice Nariman concurring with CJI Misra held that the custom of barring entry of women into Sabarimala Temple is violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India.

Rule 3(b) of 1965 Rules states that women shall not be entitled to offer worship in any place of public worship at such time during which they are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship.

Rule 3: The classes of persons mentioned here under shall not be entitled to offer worship in any place of public worship or bath in or use the water of any sacred tank, well, spring or water course appurtenant to a place of public worship whether situate within or outside precincts thereof, or any sacred place including a hill or hill lock, or a road, street or pathways which is requisite for obtaining access to the place of public worship.

(b) Women at such time during which they are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship.

To give effect to the said mandate, the Kerala government had issued notifications barring women between the age group of 10 to 50 years from entering Sabarimala temple.

In consequence, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court in 2006 by Indian Young Lawyers Association seeking the lifting of the ban on entry of women into the temple.

On March 7, 2008, the matter was referred to a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan but came up for hearing seven years later, on January 11, 2016.

During the hearing, the Kerala government had changed its stance on the issue three times.

The Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, which was in power in Kerala when the petition was filed in 2006, had chosen not to oppose the petition and had filed an affidavit supporting the entry of women into the temple.

Subsequently, when the case had come up for hearing in January 2016, the United Democratic Front (UDF) government, which was in power filed an affidavit supporting the ban.

When the LDF government again returned to power in 2016, it initially said that it will support the ban on women. However, later it changed its stand and told the Court that they are ready to allow the entry of women into the temple.

On October 13, 2017, the Bench referred the case to a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench after hearing the case for eight days had reserved its verdict on August 1, 2018.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

victims-appeal-against-acquittal-can-be-summarily-dismissed-when-no-prima-facie-arguable-case-exists-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Victim’s Appeal Against Acquittal Can Be Summarily Dismissed When No Prima Facie Arguable Case Exists: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court rules that a victim’s appeal against acquittal can be summarily dismissed under BNSS if no prima facie arguable case is shown.

10 January, 2026 12:52 AM

TOP STORIES

if-memorial-for-stan-swamy-permitted-on-private-land-no-bar-for-stupa-commemorating-victory-over-colonial-forces-madras-hc
Trending Judiciary
If Memorial for Stan Swamy Permitted on Private Land, No Bar for Stupa Commemorating Victory Over Colonial Forces: Madras HC [Read Order]

Madras High Court held that no government permission is needed to erect a memorial stupa on private patta land, citing the Stan Swamy memorial precedent.

05 January, 2026 05:35 PM
sc-denies-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-in-2020-delhi-riots-conspiracy-case-grants-bail-to-five-others
Trending Judiciary
SC Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in 2020 Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case; Grants Bail to Five Others

Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, while granting bail to five co-accused.

05 January, 2026 05:55 PM
allahabad-hc-holds-commercial-division-of-high-court-as-proper-forum-for-enforcement-of-domestic-awards-in-international-commercial-arbitration
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC holds Commercial Division of High Court as proper forum for enforcement of domestic awards in international commercial arbitration [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court rules that domestic arbitral awards in international commercial arbitration seated in India must be enforced before the High Court’s Commercial Division.

05 January, 2026 06:11 PM
theft-worth-below-5000-is-non-cognizable-offence-under-bns-police-cannot-register-fir-without-magistrates-permission-andhra-hc
Trending Judiciary
Theft Worth Below ₹5,000 Is Non-Cognizable Offence Under BNS; Police Cannot Register FIR Without Magistrate’s Permission: Andhra HC [Read Order]

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules theft below ₹5,000 is non-cognizable under BNS; police cannot register FIR or investigate without magistrate’s permission.

05 January, 2026 07:31 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email