Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a 10-year-old minor girl seeking permission to undertake a pilgrimage to the Sabarimala Temple during the Mandala Pooja/Makaravilakku season. The petition, filed through her father, invoked the court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking a declaration that she was entitled to the pilgrimage without an upper age qualification. However, the Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed the petition, citing pending considerations before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court regarding essential religious practices and restrictions on women in places of worship.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Advocates Manu S Govind and A Jayasankar, representing the petitioner, argued that the minor girl, who had not attained puberty, should be allowed to undertake the pilgrimage to Sabarimala as per prevailing customs. They contended that the upper age limit of 10 years for such pilgrimages was merely for convenience and not based on religious principles. On the other hand, Advocate G Biju, representing the respondents, argued that the restriction on women aged above 10 and below 50 for Sabarimala pilgrimage was not violative of constitutional provisions and was based on age rather than gender discrimination.

Court’s Judgement:

The Kerala High Court, in its ruling, emphasized that the issues raised in the petition were pending consideration before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala Review Petition. The court noted that the restriction imposed by the Travancore Devaswom Board on women aged above 10 for Sabarimala pilgrimage was not violative of constitutional provisions or prevailing laws. It held that the petitioner would have to wait for the final decision of the Supreme Court on these matters before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, leaving open all other legal contentions.