Sabarimala: Who may enter & how many?
Turning the religion debate into a forest debate does not diminish faith as in the Sabarimala case; it safeguards the landscape that makes faith possible
BEFORE asking who may enter Sabarimala, India must ask how many the forest can bear. The Supreme Court's nine-judge Bench is once again hearing arguments on one of India's most polarising constitutional questions: what counts as an essential religious practice, and can women be excluded from a place of worship on that basis?
The 2018 Indian Young Lawyers Association judgment struck down the exclusion of women aged 10-50 from Sabarimala, holding that the practice violated equality, dignity and non-discrimination. It also held that Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate religious denomination and that the exclusion was not an essential religious practice (ERP). The present Bench is re-examining the correctness of that ruling and its wider implications for religious freedom across India.
The ERP doctrine, first articulated in Shirur Mutt (1954), requires courts to protect only those practices that are indispensable to a religion's identity. This framework was later tightened in cases such as Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta (Ananda Marga), where the court held that the Tandava dance was not an essential practice because it lacked scriptural foundation, historical continuity and consistent observance. The significance of this precedent is clear: a practice does not become "essential" merely because a group asserts it. Essentiality must be demonstrated through doctrine, history and continuity-not belief alone.
The Union government has argued that courts should not act as social reformers and that constitutional morality is too subjective to guide judicial review. Petitioners opposing women's entry claim denominational autonomy under Article 26. Others argue that gender-based exclusion cannot be shielded by religious freedom when it violates Articles 14, 15, and 21.
The Bench is navigating three overlapping questions:
1. What is essential to a religion
2. Who qualifies as a religious denomination
3. Where religious autonomy ends and constitutional equality begins
These are weighty questions. But they are not the only questions. While the Court decides who may enter, the forest landscape asks a more fundamental one: how many can the land sustain?
Sabarimala is not merely a shrine; it is a pulse within the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghats of Pathanamthitta, Kerala. The pilgrimage route is a corridor of wildlife, soil, rivers and forest thresholds. Yet the ecological dimension - carrying capacity, habitat stress and landscape fragility - remains the "silent party" in this litigation, rarely entering the courtroom or the public imagination.
This silence is striking because other states have recognised the limits of their hill ecosystems. The Madras High Court has insisted on scientific carrying-capacity studies for the Nilgiris and Kodaikanal. The SC has previously upheld access controls in tiger reserves when unregulated entry threatened habitat integrity. These judicial experiences show that ecology is not an afterthought - it is the foundation of sustainable pilgrimage.
Sabarimala is a shrine inside a protected area, a pilgrimage route carved through one of the most fragile forest ecosystems in the Western Ghats. Yet the ecological dimension remains almost absent from public debate. A religion debate asks: who may enter? What is tradition? What do scriptures say? A forest debate asks: how many may enter without breaking the land? What is the carrying capacity of a protected habitat? What do the soil, the river and the wildlife corridor say?
The two debates are not enemies; they simply speak different languages. But only the ecological one determines whether the pilgrimage can survive. Turning the religion debate into a forest debate does not diminish faith; it safeguards the landscape that makes faith possible.
Tiger reserves do calculate visitor carrying capacity, but their logic differs from pilgrimage sites. Sabarimala's challenge is not wildlife disturbance alone but the sheer surge of people overwhelming terrain, queues, sanitation systems and emergency response. Unregulated vehicular inflow, waste loads and landscape stress are already choking a fragile mountain system. The way forward is real-time management: chip-based entry tags, GPS-linked dashboards for crowds and vehicles, dynamic caps, staggered slotting and automated alerts for police and administrators. Such digital governance replaces guesswork with evidence, ensuring safety, ecological balance and orderly movement in high-pressure sacred and tourist spaces.
The daily entry - of both pilgrims and vehicles - must therefore be scientifically regulated if the landscape is to remain intact. The Kasturirangan Committee has warned that the Western Ghats are nearing ecological thresholds. As access expands and devotees increase in number, the pressure on the habitat will rise, not fall. Sabarimala needs the same shift that other fragile hill ecosystems have adopted: a carrying-capacity regime that respects both faith and forest. Only then can the pilgrimage endure without breaking the land that sustains it.
Every season brings more pilgrims, more waste and more pressure on soil, water and wildlife corridors. The forest absorbs it all quietly because forests do not file petitions or hold press conferences. They simply endure - until they cannot. If ecological strain continues unchecked, the debate over women's entry may become irrelevant. A pilgrimage cannot survive if its landscape collapses.
As the SC re-examines essential practices, denominational rights and gender equality, India must confront a fourth question: Can a pilgrimage inside a protected forest continue without a scientific carrying-capacity framework?
This is not a question of faith versus ecology. It is a question of whether faith can survive without ecology. The court's final judgment will shape the future of religious freedom and gender justice. But unless the ecological dimension enters the conversation, any legal victory - whichever side prevails - may stand on a landscape slowly eroding beneath it.
The challenge is not only to reconcile gender-neutral entry with the constitutional tension between Articles 25 and 26. It is also to recognise that the pilgrimage itself depends on the carrying capacity of the fragile landscape that sustains Sabarimala. Rights shape entry, but ecology shapes survival. Sabarimala needs both.
Views are personal
