The Supreme Court recently questioned why an Indian NGO, the Indian Young Lawyers Association, challenged the rule banning women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple. During a hearing led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, the court asked what business the group had in getting involved in the matter. The bench, which included nine judges, also humorously asked if the lawyers were acting as the country’s Chief Minister.
The Sabarimala temple has long followed a tradition of not allowing women between 10 and 50 years old to enter due to religious beliefs. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of women’s right to access the temple, sparking widespread protests from those who supported the traditional ban. The court is now reviewing its earlier decision, and the lawyers’ group has been a key player in challenging the prohibition.
The bench also pointed out that the temple’s management had not raised objections to the 2018 ruling but instead let devotees decide whether to follow it. This led to confusion and mixed compliance among worshippers. The court emphasized the need for clarity on how such religious practices align with constitutional rights, especially in cases involving gender equality.
The hearing is part of a broader review process that has drawn intense public debate, with many arguing over the balance between religious freedom and women’s rights.