In a significant oral observation during the ongoing Sabarimala reference case, the Supreme Court has touched upon the delicate intersection of personal faith and customary restrictions. Justice BV Nagarathna, a member of the nine-judge Constitution Bench, remarked on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, that "genuine" or "true" female devotees of Lord Ayyappa often choose to wait until they cross the age of 50 before visiting the hilltop shrine in Kerala.

The observation was made during a hearing that seeks to clarify the scope of religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Nagarathna noted that many women between the ages of 10 and 50 observe a self-imposed restraint, respecting the long-standing tradition of the deity’s celibate nature. "The true devotees who are women between 10-50 years, they also observe this restraint and stay away... after 50 years, they will go," she remarked.

This comment prompted a spirited exchange with Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who was representing women seeking entry to the temple. Jaising countered that while many women in Kerala may choose to wait, there are also those who believe they should not be barred during the most "productive and creative" period of their lives. She argued that the exclusion effectively tells women to "live half a life" by restricting their spiritual participation for four decades.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, expressed a cautious approach toward judicial intervention in matters of faith. The judges voiced concerns about the "annihilation of religion," suggesting that if every individual were allowed to challenge or redefine religious practices based on personal preference, it could lead to a total breakdown of religious identity. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that matters of conscience and the specific philosophy of an idol—such as the Naishtika Brahmachari status of Lord Ayyappa—are often beyond the scope of legislative or judicial judgment.

A central theme of the day’s discussion was whether "non-believers" or "casual visitors" have the standing to challenge the customs of a specific temple. The Bench questioned whether individuals from far-off regions, who may not subscribe to the temple's core theology, should be permitted to disrupt age-old traditions. In response, Jaising maintained that the right to enter a public temple is a constitutional "freedom" that should not depend on a "test of devotion" by the Court.

The hearing also revisited the "Essential Religious Practices" (ERP) test. While some argue the test is the only way to balance reform with freedom, others fear it allows courts to play the role of "theologians." Justice Nagarathna noted that the goal is to ensure that "in the name of social reform, a religion cannot be hollowed out." She highlighted that spiritualism and conscience have evolved over centuries and cannot be entirely discarded in favor of modern interpretations.

Indira Jaising, however, reminded the Court of the history of reform within Hinduism, pointing out that many customs—such as those excluding women from funeral pyres—have already faded through practice and social evolution. She urged the Court to intervene in cases of "egregious violations," specifically where customs are rooted in notions of "purity and pollution" which she argued fall under the prohibition of untouchability (Article 17).

As the nine-judge Bench continues to deliberate on these seven foundational questions of law, the case remains one of the most watched in Indian legal history. The outcome will not only decide the fate of women’s entry into Sabarimala but will also set a massive precedent for how the State and the Judiciary interact with the diverse and often conflicting customs of all religious communities in India.

The hearings are set to resume on May 5, as the Court attempts to find a middle ground that respects civilisational history while upholding the mandates of a modern Constitution.