Key points

In a major update in the Sabarimala reference case, the Supreme Court court has verbally said that women who consider themselves true devotees of Lord Ayyappa won't enter the Sabarimala temple till they attain 50 years of age.

The apex court is hearing one of its most important and sensitive cases in recent years— the Sabarimala reference case. On the tenth day of hearings, on 29th April, 2026, a nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant asked some direct questions that go to the heart of the issue: who has the right to enter a temple, and does it matter whether that person is actually a believer?

The court raised a simple but powerful question to the petitioners: if someone from north India does not believe in Lord Ayyappa, how can they demand the right to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala?

The nine-judge bench pointed out that there is a big difference between a devotee, someone who genuinely follows the faith, and someone who wants entry purely based on their constitutional rights. The court felt this difference cannot be ignored when deciding such a sensitive matter.

See also: Sabarimala Reference Case Day 8: “A Hindu Is a Hindu,” Says Justice Nagarathna; Court Questions Religious Exclusion

For context, the Sabarimala temple has traditionally not allowed women between the ages of 10 and 50 to enter. This is based on the belief that Lord Ayyappa is a celibate deity. The court noted that women who are true devotees of Lord Ayyappa would themselves not go to the temple until they are over 50, out of respect for this belief.

The case is based on two rights being pulled in opposite directions. On one side, Article 25(1) of the Constitution gives every individual the freedom to follow and practise their religion. On the other side, religious groups also have the right to manage their own religious affairs.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued on behalf of a woman named Bindu, who had visited the Sabarimala temple after the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling that allowed women of all ages to enter. Jaising said that an individual’s right to religious freedom should be stronger than the rules set by a religious group. She also argued that courts have both the right and the duty to step in when there is discrimination, and that they cannot simply look the other way.

Bindu’s visit, however, came at a personal cost. After she entered the temple, the authorities carried out a purification ritual called Shuddhi. Bindu never went back. As Jaising told the court, she did not have the courage to go a second time. This real-life story puts a human face on what is otherwise a very technical legal debate.

While the court acknowledged that banning women of a certain age from the temple violates Article 25, it was also careful not to go too far. The judges seemed uncomfortable with the idea of courts stepping into religious matters and changing centuries-old practices in the name of reform.

See also: Why Are Allegations Made Against Justice Swaran Kanta Sharma For Being Biased And Impartial?

Justice Nagarathna made an important point: the part of the Constitution that allows the government to pass laws for religious reform (Article 25(2)(b)) is not a right that individuals can directly use in court. It is a power given to the government to act if it chooses to, and nothing more.

“In the name of reform, don’t hollow out the religion. Let us not open rituals and ceremonies which are there for centuries,” she said.

On the previous day 9 hearing, held on 28th April 2026, the bench examined the balance between individual fundamental rights (Article 25) and the autonomy of religious denominations (Article 26). The Court stressed that while denominations have autonomy over religious affairs, they must not disrupt public order or secular aspects of society.

The Sabarimala case is bigger than just one temple. The final verdict will shape how courts across India handle questions about religion, discrimination, and personal rights, and not just for Hindus but for people of all faiths. 

In addition to CJI Surya Kant, the nine-judge bench include Justices Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, Joymalya Bagchi, R Mahadevan, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and MM Sundresh.

The next hearing of the Sabarimala Reference case is scheduled to be held on Thursday, 7th May, 2026.

Suggested reading: