The long-standing debate over the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple has surged back to the forefront of Kerala’s political landscape. On Sunday, February 15, 2026, a fierce war of words erupted between the ruling CPI(M) and the opposition Congress, just hours before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a series of review petitions.+1
The timing is particularly sensitive as Kerala enters a “poll-bound” phase, making the government’s stance a critical factor for millions of devotees.
The Supreme Court Hearing: What to Expect
On Monday, February 16, 2026, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant is scheduled to consider the review and writ petitions challenging the 2018 landmark verdict.
- The 2018 Verdict: The SC originally ruled that the ban on women aged 10–50 was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
- The Reference: In 2019, a five-judge bench referred the matter to a larger nine-judge bench to examine broader questions of religious freedom and “essential religious practices.”
- Monday’s Goal: The three-judge bench is expected to decide the roadmap for the larger bench and determine whether a new Constitution Bench needs to be constituted.
Political Sparring: “Affidavit vs. Sentiment”
The opposition has placed the LDF government in a tight spot, demanding to know if they will stick to their original “progressive” stance or pivot to appease traditionalists.
| Stakeholder | Current Stance / Demand |
| V.D. Satheesan (Congress) | Demands CM Pinarayi Vijayan clarify if the govt will withdraw its earlier affidavit supporting women’s entry. |
| K.C. Venugopal (AICC) | Urges the state government to revise its affidavit, claiming the “entire state” wants traditional customs preserved. |
| M.V. Govindan (CPI-M) | States the government will reveal its stand only in court; maintains a “balanced approach” to protect both rights and faith. |
| NSS (Nair Service Society) | Firmly opposes women’s entry; urges a revised affidavit to protect age-old rituals. |
The “Poll-Bound” Pressure
With assembly elections on the horizon, the CPI(M) appears more cautious than in 2018. While Law Minister P. Rajeev accused the opposition of “unprecedented haste,” party leaders like A. Vijayaraghavan have emphasized the need for “consensus” to avoid creating divisions among devotees—a significant shift from the party’s earlier aggressive implementation of the 2018 order.+1
Timeline of the Sabarimala Legal Battle
- Sept 2018: SC permits women of all ages to enter Sabarimala (4:1 verdict).
- Nov 2019: Review petitions referred to a larger bench by a 3:2 majority.
- Jan 2020: Nine-judge bench constituted but hearing postponed due to various factors.
- Feb 2026: Case returns to a three-judge bench under CJI Surya Kant.