The Sabarimala Temple reopened on Thursday amid a raging row over a police rule book that stated that no female visitor would be denied entry to the shrine.
This is the first time in three years that the sanctum sanctorum of the highly revered Hindu temple has been opened to the public after being closed in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19 lockdowns and disruptions.
However, the first day of the two-month annual pilgrimage to the shrine began on a controversial note after several Hindu groups protested over the rules laid out for women devotees in the police manual.
As the issue boiled over, state Temple Affairs Minister K. Radhakrishnan, monitoring the situation at the shrine, declared that the police would not allow women aged between 10 and 50 inside the temple (as has been tradition), which is located at Sabarimala hill, inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve in Perinad village.
He further stated that the rule book would be withdrawn and a new manual released after removing the controversial section.
"This was printed long back and we will go by the tradition of the temple that women in certain age-group will only be allowed. There is no room for any controversy now," he told media in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala, where the temple is situated.
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) state President K. Surendran threatened with mass agitation if the rule book wasn't withdrawn with immediate effect.
Although the Supreme Court in 2018 allowed women of all ages into the temple, it led to large-scale protests, involving more than 50,000 people. The authorities had to book the protesters for defying the orders of the Supreme Court.
However, as Hindu groups from across the state continued to put pressure on the state government, it withdrew cases against thousands of people who participated in the Sabarimala protest.
The matter subsequently reached India's top court again, which referred the multiple review petitions to a larger seven-judge bench. A verdict on the matter is still pending.
The matter subsequently reached India's top court again, which referred the multiple review petitions to a larger seven-judge bench. A verdict on the matter is still pending.