Kerala High Court Declines Minor Girl's Plea Seeking Pilgrimage To Sabarimala Temple Due To Issues Pending Before SC's Larger Bench In Review Petition

The writ petition was filed through her father and legal guardian seeking a writ of mandamus to the Travancore Devaswom Board to permit the girl to have her pilgrimage since she has not attained puberty.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed the writ petition stating the issues of essential religious practice and restriction of women in places of worship were pending consideration before a Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the review petition.

“Since the question regarding the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and the provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14, and connected issues are pending before a Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review-5 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association [(2020) 2 SCC 1], in the review petitions arising out of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala [(2019) 11 SCC 1] the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. In such circumstances, this writ petition fails on the above ground and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner.”

The petitioner's application was rejected online since she crossed the upper age limit of 10 years. It was stated that her pilgrimage was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, financial constraints and the poor health of her father. The petitioner stated a representation was also filed before the Travancore Devaswom Board and no decision has been taken on it so far. Relying upon S. Mahendran v. Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board and others (1993), it was submitted that girl children who had not attained puberty could have pilgrimage to Sabarimala as per the prevailing customs. It was argued that the upper age limit of 10 years was fixed only for convenience.

The Court observed that the Division Bench in S. Mahendran (supra) has directed the Travancore Devaswom Board not to permit women above the age of 10 and below the age of 50 for Sabarimala pilgrimage. It was stated that such a restriction imposed by the Board was not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, Hindu Place of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 since there was no restriction to women as a class but the prohibition was in respect of an age group of women.

The Court stated that the petitioner would have to wait until the issues have been finally decided by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the Sabarimala Review Petition. It stated that one of the issues to be considered by the Larger Bench in Kantararu Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) was regarding the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14.

The Court stated that relief could not be granted to the petitioner since these issues were pending before the Apex Court. It thus dismissed the writ petition for the above reason, leaving open all other contentions.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Manu S Govind, A Jayasankar

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate G Biju

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 350

Case Title: Snigdha Sreenath (Minor) v Travancore Devaswom Board

Case Number: WP(C)NO.39847 OF 2023

Click here to read/download Judgment