Brahmin Scholar Supports Women’s Entry, Challenges Sabarimala Traditions in Supreme Court
A 94-year-old Brahmin scholar from Kerala has approached the Supreme Court seeking intervention in the ongoing Sabarimala reference proceedings, arguing that customs inconsistent with constitutional values must be struck down.
S. Parameswaran Nampoothiri, a freedom fighter, author, and member of the Kerala Namboothiri Brahmin community, submitted that there is no constitutional basis under Articles 25 and 26 to prohibit women of any age from entering the Sabarimala temple. The intervention application has been filed in the larger constitutional reference arising from the 2018 Supreme Court verdict that permitted women of all age groups to enter the shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.
In his plea, Nampoothiri argued that religion and customs are subject to constitutional scrutiny and cannot override fundamental rights. He contended that discriminatory practices based on menstruation violate women’s dignity and equality guaranteed under the Constitution. According to the application, customs that are “illogical, unreasonable or unjust” must be declared unconstitutional.
The scholar also emphasized that treating menstruating women as impure lacks logic and undermines gender equality, which he described as part of the Constitution’s basic structure. He further argued that constitutional morality must prevail over discriminatory religious practices.
At the same time, the application reportedly cautioned against selectively reforming practices in one religion while leaving similar customs in other faiths untouched, calling such an approach discriminatory and unfair.
The Sabarimala dispute has remained one of the most significant constitutional and religious freedom debates in recent years. In 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, ruled that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50 from the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The judgment triggered widespread protests and multiple review petitions, eventually leading to a reference before a nine-judge bench examining broader questions concerning the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights.
The ongoing hearings before the nine-judge bench have focused on issues such as essential religious practices, constitutional morality, equality, and the extent of judicial review over religious customs.