Sabarimala - A Pilgrimage Of Faith, Law And Social Change
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
SABARIMALA: A PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH, LAW AND
SOCIAL CHANGE
Gauri.S, BBA LLB (H), Amity Law School, Noida
ABSTRACT
The Sabarimala temple, a major Hindu pilgrimage center in Kerala, India, celebrates Lord Ayyappa and has attracted much controversy for its tradition prohibiting the entry of women of menstruating age (10 to 50 years). The present paper investigates the origins of the custom and highlights the deity's celibate nature and certain peculiar traditions attached to the temple. It delves into the legal controversies arising out of the case brought up by the Indian Young Lawyers Association (2018), the consequent landmark judgment of the Supreme Court, and the minority opinion underscoring the necessity to protect religious practices. The assertion emphasizes the importance of respecting various styles of worship in a more balanced manner with constitutional objectives while distinguishing the Sabarimala tradition from prohibitive practices.
The explicit call to allow the continuation of this ageold custom rests its case on understanding and dialogue to enlighten the misconceptions surrounding these practices and the continuation of the sacredness of the temple. the article concludes with reflections on some of the issues that stem from ensuring the survival of religious traditions within a pluralist society, while at the same time committing to modern constitutional values. Keywords: Sabarimala, Religious traditions, Gender Equality, Supreme Court ruling, Constitutional Rights.
INTRODUCTION
The Sabarimala Temple in India, located in the dense Western Ghats of Kerala, is among the most revered pilgrim areas in the country, with millions of devotees visiting it every year. Dedicated to Lord Ayyappa-who is a celibate god, conceived by the union of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu (in his Mohini avatar)-the temple has immense traditions and rituals, some of which have been in development for ages. One of these traditions pertains to the prohibition of the entry of women into the temple aged 10 to 50 years, fiercely opposed and contested in the last few decades. The stated rationale for the restriction has been to maintain Lord Ayyappa's celibate status, while it is also viewed by others as a violation of gender equality. Some regard this rule as a fundamental religious practice that is intimately bound up with the temple's identity.
Thus unfolded a legal and social battle that poked into challenges very deep in the complexity of interplay between rights of religions, cultural traditions, and constitutional rights. Much of the history surrounding the Sabarimala tradition intertwines with the greater mythology of Lord Ayyappa, allegedly with the intent of eradicating the demoness Mahishi. Ayyappa's celibate nature and the severe 41 days of penance perform by the devotees before making a holy trip to the temple are intrinsic for this pilgrimage. The Vratam-the forty-one days of penance-are seen as a transformative process characterized by fasting, meditation, and self-purification in preparation for the devotee's meeting with the divine.
However, traditional devotees maintain that restrictions prohibiting menstruating women from the pilgrimage are a matter of upholding Lord Ayyappa's celibacy and preserving the sanctity of this temple. The view that opposes and argues gender discrimination also adds that this practice is still founded on principles of purity and exclusion rather than considerations of rights. The litigation regarding Sabarimala traditions began in 1991 before the Kerala High Court, finding merit in the restrictions, citing the traditions were ancient and constitutionally just. In 2006 the Indian Young Lawyers Association instituted a public interest litigation (PIL) against the practice in the Supreme Court on grounds of violation of women's fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 25 (Freedom of Religion).
This culminated in an epochmaking decision rendered in 2018 when the Supreme Court, by a vote of 4:1, declared the restriction unconstitutional and discriminatory. In declaring that the practice in question was not an essential religious activity and robbed women of their rights of equality and dignity, the majority opinions lamented the loss of section 37 to this prejudice to women. Dissenting Justice Indu Malhotra acknowledged that the court should generally not interfere with the subject of religion unless the practices in question were evil or oppressive. The judgment incited widespread protests and ultimately further polarized opinions. For some, it was a progressive advance toward gender equality; for others, an unwarranted interference in their religious traditions and an affront to the judicial overreach.
Following this, the political agenda became strong, with different parties trying to further their own agendas. The matter became further clouded by subsequent review petitions, bringing broader constitutional questions for larger bench consideration in 2019, which tells a larger story about the struggle of reconciliation of religious liberty against constitutional rights. The present article undertakes an analysis of the genesis of the Sabarimala tradition, the various challenges that have been put before the courts in relation to it, and the social repercussions of the Supreme Court judgment in that context. In addressing certain myths and misgivings surrounding this practice, the article attempts to develop a more nuanced understanding of this debate and to show the dismal situation that arises when religious tradition is locked in a fight with modern constitutional values.
Through a discourse that fosters historical, cultural, and legal interrogation of the issue, it proposes to engender more informed and humane considerations of this raging issue. The Origin and background of the temple Sabarimala is a temple surrounded by 18 hills in the Periyar tiger reserve, Perinad village in the Pathanamthitta district, Kerala. It is one of the largest and most recognized pilgrimage sites in the world. Approximately 40-50 million deities visit the temple every year. The temple honours the deity Lord Ayyapa, also known as Dharma Shasta, the son of Lord Shiva and a female avatar of Lord Vishnu.
This pilgrimage is considered unique among Hindus due to the rigorous Vratam for 41 days one must go through before visiting the temple, Vratam means “vow” or “resolution” where one must think pure thoughts, speak pure words, and carry out pure deeds it is also a process toward self-purification. Each element of the Vratam is carefully curated to foster humility, discipline, and inner transformation. During this period the devotee abstains from consuming any substances and food items that are considered to stimulate attachment or lower desires such as alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, meat, fish, and eggs encouraging moderation and reducing indulgence. Devotees must refrain from using impolite or untruthful speech instead one must always use pleasant language during this period. Chanting, studying religious texts, and singing prayers work to centre the mind toward the divine.
The ritual visit to temples acts as a reinforcement of this connection, while regular physical cleanliness—that is, bathing twice a day, wearing clean clothes, and avoiding pollution—becomes an outward manifestation of one's inner purity. The practice of abstinence from sexual activity and thought further intensifies the spirit of this discipline, diverting energy away from physical desires and into higher spiritual attainments. These practices, when collectively considered, strengthen willpower and transcend bodily limitations for the devotee. Culminating in the preparation of the Irumudi, this is a two-compartment cloth bag containing a coconut filled with ghee, representing the ego and impurities offered to the divine. Once at Sabarimala, the ghee is offered to the deity as Abhishekam signifying the complete surrender of the devotee.
The empty coconut is cast into the sacred fire (Agni) as a sign of self-abnegation. 1Tat Twam Asi—the acknowledgment that the divinity perceived in Lord Ayyappa is the same as that residing in oneself is the essence of this journey of self-purification. Words do not adequately convey that when the transformation happens, the devotee then experiences a feeling of oneness and elevation beyond the spheres of humanity. History and birth of Lord Ayyapan King Rajashekhara was known to be just as well as a great king; hence he was adored very much by the people. His reign was looked upon as a golden age for the territory. However, here were the king and his queen cast forever into sadness; they remained childless and without an heir to the throne. Thus, in all their sorrow, they prayed to Lord Shiva, asking for the blessing of a child.
In the meantime, there was a demon named Mahishasura, which is the name given to the one who was in the form of a bull; he was so mighty in penance that he was able to persuade Lord Brahma to grant him a boon that he should not be killed by any being on the earth. With that boon, he tortured the mortals, razing villages and towns to the ground, thereby creating terror, and driving people away into safe havens; the Devas, unable to bear his torture, requested Goddess Durga to help them defeat him in battle. Mahishi, sister of Mahishasura, to avenge her brother's death, undertook severe penance and secured a boon from Lord Brahma. She would be killed only by the child of Vishnu (Hari) and Shiva (Haran). Before long Mahishi was convinced of her invulnerability, and, after inflicting havoc upon Devaloka, she compelled the Devas to appeal to Lord Vishnu for assistance.
Lord Vishnu now assumed the female form of Mohini to meet the special condition of Mahishi's boon. This same Mohini form was previously assumed by Vishnu to confuse the asuras during the churning of the ocean (Samudra Manthan) and obtain the nectar of immortality (Amrit) for the devas. Thus, a divine male child was born from the union of Mohini with Lord Shiva,
1 Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samajam (Mar. 28, 2021), https://sassbharath.org/about-sabarimala/.
entrusted by the celestials to be deposited on the banks of the Pampa River, by which child Mahishi's terror was to cease. While hunting near the River Pampa, King Rajashekhara happened upon a divine infant in the midst of the woods. Sporting a gold chain with a bell (Mani), the child was named Manikandan on the advice of an enigmatic sadhu who prophesied his birth from heaven and his potential role in alleviating the troubles of the dynasty. Rajashekhara and the queen deemed the child a gift from Lord Shiva. As he held the divine child a sadhu approached him and instructed the King to take the infant to the palace, the sadhu made a prophecy that the child would mitigate all the sufferings of the dynasty, and by the time he turned twelve Rajashekhara would be aware of his divinity.
The sadhu also instructed to name the child Manikandan which means “one with a golden neck” as he wore a golden chain with a bell around his neck. Delighted by the turn of events the King took Manikandan to the palace and narrated the happenings to the queen. Both felt that they had been blessed by Lord Shiva himself. Manikandan surpassed everyone with his intelligence, martial ability, and divinity, and all were astonished by his guru and in the court. At the end of his studies, he performed a public miracle that could be construed as a miraculous manifestation of his divinity—him curing blindness and gave his disorders of speech back to his guru's son. Despite the joy brought by him to Pandalam the minister conceived a hatred for him instead, having ulterior motives for the throne.
Meanwhile, the queen was blessed with a male child who was named Raja Rajan, which they sensed that the miraculous event was due to the presence of Manikandan and decided to crown him as the king. As the news unravelled the evil minister inflicted ideas in the minds of the queen it was improper for the king to choose Manikandan to inherit the throne instead of his own son. Upon being influenced by the words of the minister the queen wanted Manikandan gone from Pandalam. The minister cooks up a plan where he instructs the queen to feign illness and assures that he would make the physician proclaim that the only cure would be tigress’s milk, Manikandan would be impelled to go to the forest and would fall prey for the wild animals. Blinded by the attachment towards her son the queen agreed to execute the plan.
Upon heading the news of his beloved Queen’s illness, the King proclaimed that he would give half of his kingdom to anyone who was able to bring the cure. The soldiers sent for tiger milk came back empty-handed, and Manikandan decided to attempt it himself. Even though King Rajashekhara hesitated, feeling that his son was too young and that his coronation was near, Manikandan persuaded him to give permission. Manikandan, without even an escort, set out alone; the Bhootagana ( soldiers) of Lord Shiva followed him.
On the way, Manikandan encountered the demoness Mahishi, who was then oppressing Devaloka. He fought with her fiercely, for he was enraged by her evil deeds, finally killing her on the banks of the Azhutha River. With her realization that she was slain by the son of Hari and Haran, she sought his pardon and died. After the battle, Manikandan set off to procure the tiger's milk, where he was granted darshan and instructed by Lord Shiva he disguised as a tiger, and in company with the devas in the form of tigers and tigresses, Manikandan returned successfully to the palace and accomplished his divine mission with the assistance of Lord Indra. The return of Manikandan, attended by the tigresses, was received by the people in a panic, and Rajashekhara was enveloped in gloom at having realized the truth.
The sadhu who had earlier announced Manikandan to be an incarnation of God made repeated entries for confirmation of his divine status. The King was now filled with remorse for having sent Manikandan to the forest at the behest of the Queen's pretended ill health and asked for his forgiveness. Though Rajashekhara wanted to punish the minister for his treachery, Manikandan insisted on the path of forgiveness and said that his earthly mission was done. He obliged the King with a wish to construct a temple in his honour before going back to Devaloka. He shot an arrow that reached Sabarimala, where the Dharma Sastha temple stood by the sage Parasurama. He instructed the King to restore it. Manikandan merged with the murti of Dharma Sastha, thus bringing a Divine completion to his task.
Clarifying the Misconception surrounding the temple The Sabarimala temple became widely popular and sensational over a few years due to its ageold practice where women during menstruating age (10-50) are restricted from entering the temple this very tradition was questioned and criticized for all wrong reasons hence it is essential to address and clarify the misinformation put forth that “women are not allowed in the temple”. Tradition holds that Ayyappa was born to vanquish a demoness cursed by a boon such that she could only be killed by a child born of the union of Shiva and Vishnu. The moment Ayyappa fulfils his dharma by slaying the demoness, a celestial being rises from her body. The curse of the demoness was broken by her death, thus freeing her.
The woman now pleads with Ayyappa to marry her, but he refuses, telling her that he must go to Sabarimala to fulfil the wishes of his devotees. He, however, assures her that he will marry her when the kanni-swamis stop coming to Sabarimala. She is now waiting for him in a temple next to the main one and is worshipped as Malikapurathamma. It is said that women do not go to the temple out of empathy for Malikapurathamma and her eternal wait for Lord Ayyapa. With throngs of devotees pouring in every year, hers is going to be a long wait. The rule is rooted in the celibate nature (Naisthika brahmacharya) of the deity, Lord Ayyapa and it is in no form purporting to discrimination or misogyny. Women, outside this age category as well as men, can participate in the pilgrimage and rituals, making this restriction particular and contextual and not exclusionary.
To comprehend the restriction at Sabarimala, one must first understand the philosophical and cultural distinction of temples in Kerala, particularly in South India. While churches, mosques, gurudwaras, and several temples of North and Central India are essentially functional as prayer halls for the Almighty, temples in Kerala are viewed as homes for the deities. In these temples, the deity is not regarded as the Omnipotent God; they are merely an icon of Parabrahma (the ultimate reality or supreme consciousness). Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala is consecrated, as a yogi who follows rigorous celibacy along the lines of avoiding contact with women while upholding discipline, meditative focus, and detachment. Thus, to safeguard this sanctified identity, entry into the temple by women of menstruating age is disallowed.
Their presence would symbolically violate his celibate identity, which would require the reconsecration of the deity in some other representation. Also, there are several other temples that hail the deity of Lord Ayyapan who allows the entry of women without imposing any restrictions In the earlier periods, Sabarimala was a place for difficult pilgrimage, involving dense forests inhabited by wild animals. The trek could be long and arduous, cutting through long distances of wilderness without so much as a room, a pond, or any kind of amenity that could provide some comfort or safety for the weary pilgrims. For women, especially for those of menstruating age, much-added trouble would come in the way. Back in those days, menstruation was a natural process, but one riddled with all social forms of taboo and misconception.
Women were always advised that it was good for their health to stay at home and rest during their monthly cycles and not indulge in much labour—household chores included. But rest and care during menstruation came to be grossly misinterpreted by some sections of society as signifying one being 'impure. ' This gross misrepresentation nailed the conviction on purity to menstrual practices, inducing another widely held misconception: that women are prevented from entering temples, even Sabarimala in that respect, due to the impurity presumed for females. The restriction against the entry of women in Sabarimala during menstruation was, rather, a practical decision based on the arduous conditions of the pilgrimage path and the celibate nature of the deity Lord Ayyappa.
Such restrictions should not be viewed and studied as acts of oppression; they must be in their time and interpreted, rather, as notions meant for the protection and safety of women. The reasoning behind this should have been so quickly twisted into society's perception of exclusion and discrimination. Recognizing the historical and cultural context opens the way to disassembling the myths surrounding the restriction and deepening the comprehension of the original intention behind the tradition. Also, there are several other temples which hail the deity of Lord Ayyapan who allows the entry of women without imposing any restrictions.
Legal Challenges and Dissenting Judgement The entry for women to the Sabarimala temple faced notable legal challenges following by the decision of the High Court of Kerala in 1991:2 The Kerala High Court upheld the exclusion of women, saying this was a custom that was constitutional, and acceptable. It held the practice did not infringe on the rights of women regarding equality or freedom of worship. The Supreme Court Challenge of 2006: The Indian Young Lawyers Association filed this public interest litigation (PIL) to challenge the ban, asserting this violated women's fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 25 (Freedom of Religion). The petitioners claimed this practice was discriminatory and an affront to women's dignity.
3 Arguments from the Travancore Devaswom Board: The Board, which manages the temple, argued in favor of exclusion as being an essential religious practice guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution, that is, the right of religious denominations to manage their affairs. They emphasized that the prohibition was applicable only to women aged 10 to 50, in keeping with the celibate nature of the deity. The Stand of The Kerala Government: Initially supporting the exclusion, later, the Kerala government submitted that the restrictions based on age would amount to a life ban for some women since there was no guarantee that they would live beyond the age of 50-55 years. They also argued that the court could hold
2 S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, AIR 1993 Ker 42.
3 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) SCC Online SC 1690.
customary practices violating fundamental rights as inapplicable. The Ruling of the Supreme Court in 2018: In a landmark ruling, with a majority of 4 to 1, the Supreme Court ruled the ban on entry of women was unconstitutional. The majority held that the practice violated women’s fundamental rights and was discriminatory under Article 15. They further ruled that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa could not be christened as a different religious denomination, and this custom would not be termed an essential religious practice. The only conflicting voice, Justice Indu Malhotra, argued that the courts should respect the traditional customs of the faithful. Review Petitions of 2019: Of more than 50 review petitions filed, the Supreme Court, in a 3:2 decision, referred broader constitutional questions concerning women's access to religious institutions to a larger Bench of 9 Judges.
The 2018 verdict continued to hold the field pending the review. Although the Supreme Court’s decision to allow women was hailed as a progressive step towers gender-equality it was criticized by the population arguing that the decision disregarded the age-old customs, conflicted with the public opinion and hurt the religious sentiments of the society. Devotees conflicted that the practice is not discriminatory rather sacred ritual practiced by the temple throughout the existence of the temple and for many it is a matter of faith and beliefs and not inequality. The critics have accused the Supreme Court of judicial overreach in as much as it encroached upon the autonomy of religious institutions.
The Travancore Devaswom Board caught up in the management of temples asserted that the exclusion of women was an essential religious practice under the protective ambit of Article 26 of the Constitution, and that it was not for the judiciary to define what was to be taken as an essential practice in a religion. Justice Indu Malhotra in her opinion it is not upon the discretion of the court to decide or interfere regarding the religious matters of an institution unless they are oppressive or derogatory, thus she argued that the Sabarimala custom is neither and that the court's intervention undervalues the religious freedom of temple. 4 Different parties used the temple issue to divide further the political ambience. Some supported the verdict, while others fished in troubled waters for political gain.
During this controversy, 4 Justice Indu Malhotra, Dissenting Opinion in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) SCC Online SC 1690 some parties projected themselves as defenders of faith, while others claimed to be champions of gender equality, depending on which of the groups they represented. By utilizing the Sabarimala issue in the campaigning process, political parties polarized the voters along religious and cultural lines. Political rallies and campaigns made several references to the verdict and included some political leaders who openly challenged the court's order by bringing forth arguments in defence of the traditions of the temple. This has furthered the politicization and rendered substantive dialogue impossible. Politicians and activists sometimes focused on symbolic protests, such as forming human chains or personally leading women to the temple.
But here, gender equality was a cover for garnering media attention and public support. These were publicity stunts that restricted serious debate and obscured the real issues. From the enthusiasm for the initial changes, especially for the protests that suddenly gained momentum while the seeming drama of politics was unfolding, the focus shifted from gender equality toward the preservation of tradition. Any small advances that were made were quickly eclipsed by the `big picture' of public fury and political opportunism. The other key point in this discussion is to combat the misconception that menstruation and related ideas of impurity constitute the basis for restriction. Such an interpretation has moulded the entire practice into an inherently patriarchal and regressive one.
Reinforcing this notion, proponents of the tradition claim that the restriction is not labelling menstruating women to be impure but is rather based on the celibate character of the deity. This is regarded as one of the methods of worship and self-discipline in which devotees undertake 41 days of penance, including celibacy, abstinence, and denial of worldly pleasures. Thus, the exclusion of women in their menstruating years is seen in the larger perspective of worship, not as a condemnation of their biological functions. Clarification of the significance of the tradition is crucial in dismantling the misconceptions, which in turn will lead to a more widespread and informed debate.
In articulating the religious and cultural aspects underlying the practice, one would transcend a facile discourse on discrimination and instead engage in a serious dialogue on the interconnections between faith and rights. 5 On the other end, any kind of tradition, no matter how age-old, must change in accordance with the ethos of the present time. While the Sabarimala tradition may be rooted in history and religion, it cannot escape scrutiny when it seems to be challenging the constitutional tenets. It 5 Sanskriti Sinha, Sabarimala Temple Case: A Rift between Religion and Equality, 5 J. Const. L. & Juris. 34 (2022), https://lawjournals. celnet. in/index. php/Jolj/article/view/1024. is a real challenge to navigate this tension delicately without threatening to further alienate or marginalize those communities for whom these traditions are sacred.
This requires the cooperation of religious leaders, policymakers, and civil society in finding a solution.
CONCLUSION
The Sabarimala Temple controversy can be viewed as a microcosm of the conflict between tradition and modernity, religious freedom and constitutional rights, and cultural practices and gender equality. The Supreme Court verdict of 2018, which struck down an age-old restriction on women of menstruating age, represented a landmark moment in India's history from both legal and social points of view. It reaffirmed and restored the right to equality and nondiscrimination guaranteed by the Constitution by questioning all practices that, through tradition or law, perpetuate gender-based exclusion. However, the decision met with stark resistance that illustrated the degree of emotional and cultural significance the tradition holds for millions of its devotees.
The opposition was not simply an anti-women judgment; it was rather an expression in defence of a centuries-old rite integral to the identity of Sabarimala Temple and its devotees. Many see the restriction, which excludes women from entering the temple, as not about impurity or discrimination but as actually honouring the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa and maintaining the sanctity of the pilgrimage. The subsequent protests and demonstrations witnessed were merely reflections of the force with which these sentiments are held against the challenges of modern constitutional values. The Sabarimala issue brings to light the limits of judicial application into the tenets of faith and customs. Judges play a key role in defending constitutional rights; however, their decisions must be sensitive to the cultural and emotional sentiments tied to religious practices.
Justice Indu Malhotra's dissenting view, which stressed religious autonomy, shows the intense need to persuade a respect for differing modes of worship and the very complicated route between law and faith. Dialogue and understanding lie at the heart of the Sabarimala controversy. Issues based on curtains of misconception - like that these practices stem only from menstrual stigma - should create awareness around the origins of Ayyappa and his celibate nature and the rigid penances customs involved, both of which are criminated in the said discourse. More understanding on these concerns can move the dialogue away from simplistic assumptions of discrimination that would populate the franchise of meaningful dialogue regarding tradition versus equality. Sabarimala raises important questions regarding the role of religion in a plural society.
All traditions must be open to change in response to present values-they must not however be cast aside without considering their historical and cultural context. The challenge is to locate that middle ground to the extent that the rights of women are affirmed without jeopardizing the dignity of religious organizations or the sentiments of their devotees. A collaborative approach must be adopted by religious leaders, policymakers, and civil society for ways forward that benefit both faith and equality. To sum up, the Sabarimala case reflects the complexity of resolving matters of religion, law, and society, which is difficult in a diverse and pluralistic country like India. Therefore, there must be compassion, dialogue, and understanding of the cultural program practiced, coupled with a remembrance of fundamental rights.
These remain as some of the challenges India faces, and the Sabarimala controversy will always occupy a place of importance in passing toward a more inclusive and equitable society. The tension between the two, modernity and tradition, can come to resolution through reciprocal traditional respects; thus, allowing religious freedom and gender equality to meet.
REFERENCES
1. About
Sabarimala, Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samajam (Mar. 28, 2021), https://sassbharath.org/about-sabarimala/.
2 The Sabarimala Verdict
In the Conflict of Customs and Law, Which One Should Prevail?,
2 Int'l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 156 (2019).
3. Public Protests and Political Reactions to the Sabarimala Verdict, The Hindu (Sept. 28,
2018), https://www.thehindu.com.
4 Sanskriti Sinha, Sabarimala Temple Case
A Rift between Religion and Equality, 5 J. Const.
L. & Juris. 34 (2022), https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/Jolj/article/view/1024.