Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy on May 13 invoked the ideas of B. R. Ambedkar before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India to argue in favour of women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple. Appearing in connection with an application originally filed by late activist Swami Agnivesh, Guruswamy argued that constitutional morality, equality and inclusion must prevail over customs that exclude women from places of worship.
The hearings are part of the long-running Sabarimala dispute, where the court is examining broader constitutional questions around gender justice, freedom of religion and denominational rights. The Centre has continued to defend the temple’s traditional practice, while women’s rights groups and reform advocates have supported unrestricted entry for women of all ages.
Ambedkar’s Legacy Invoked In Constitutional Battle
During the hearing, Guruswamy drew extensively from Ambedkar’s speeches during debates on the Hindu Code Bill and the framing of the Constitution, arguing that social reform cannot depend solely on majority sentiment. Referring to Articles 15, 16, 17 and 25 of the Constitution, she said India’s constitutional framework was specifically designed to dismantle historical discrimination within religious institutions and ensure equal participation in public life. Guruswamy told the bench that Hinduism had historically evolved through reform and inclusion, and that denying women entry into temples weakened both constitutional guarantees and the reformative spirit of religion itself.
She also referred to Ambedkar’s personal experiences of caste discrimination, recalling how he was denied entry into the Jagannath Temple in Puri in 1945 despite accompanying then Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, who was reportedly given ceremonial access. Quoting Ambedkar’s speeches, Guruswamy argued that societies in transition often face resistance from tradition, but constitutional conscience must guide reform. She further stated that religion could expand “through emancipation” by embracing those historically excluded from its fold.
Supreme Court Revisits Larger Questions On Faith And Equality
The current proceedings stem from the wider constitutional issues raised after the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 verdict that allowed women of all ages to enter Sabarimala, overturning a centuries-old practice barring women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The ruling triggered widespread protests in Kerala, political mobilisation and intense debate over whether courts should intervene in religious customs. In 2019, review petitions against the judgment were referred to a larger bench to examine questions concerning essential religious practices and the balance between equality and religious freedom.
During the latest hearings, the Constitution Bench reportedly clarified that it would not revisit the Supreme Court’s earlier observation that “Hinduism is a way of life,” signalling that the focus would remain on constitutional interpretation rather than theological definitions. Justice B V Nagarathna also reportedly raised concerns about the extent to which courts should intervene in matters of faith once a practice is identified as religious in nature. Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that religious reform should primarily remain within the domain of the legislature rather than the judiciary.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Sabarimala case continues to represent a larger national debate over whether constitutional rights can coexist with long-standing religious customs that exclude certain groups. While faith and traditions remain deeply important to millions, constitutional values such as equality, dignity and non-discrimination are equally central to India’s democratic identity. Ambedkar’s vision of social reform reminds the country that institutions evolve when societies confront exclusion with empathy and courage rather than fear and hostility.
At a time when public discourse around religion often becomes polarised, the challenge lies in finding ways to uphold both freedom of belief and equal access without deepening social divides. Constructive dialogue, sensitivity to faith and commitment to constitutional morality are essential if India is to balance tradition with inclusion in a diverse society. Should courts continue to intervene when religious customs appear to conflict with fundamental rights or should such reforms emerge only from within communities themselves?
Also Read: Supreme Court Says Temple Visits Not Mandatory For Hindus To Prove Religious Faith Or Identity
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy on Tuesday advanced the oral argument before the Supreme Court’s nine-judge Bench hearing the Sabarimala reference. Opening her submissions, Ms Guruswamy reflected on her early days at the Bar and recalled entering Supreme Court courtrooms as a… pic.twitter.com/Ko9MuBlpYL
— The Bar Bulletin (@thebarbulletin) May 13, 2026
