The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which manages the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, filed written submissions in the Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 24, 2026) saying that beliefs and practices of a community have to be judged on the basis of the subjective belief of that community.

The Board’s submissions come ahead of the court’s review hearing from April 7 on the entry of women of menstrual age into the shrine.

“The Supreme Court is bound to accept the belief of the community, and it is not for the court to sit in judgment on that belief,” the TDB said.

Recently, the Kerala government had delicately moderated its earlier cast-iron stance in the Supreme Court in favour of entry of women of menstrual age into the shrine. The State government, in written submissions filed before the Supreme Court on March 14, said a judicial review of whether the age-old restriction on entry for women between menarche and menopause was an essential religious practice must not be guided by either reason or sentiment alone.

The State had said the court, instead, must carry out a studied assessment if the belief – that women of that age group should not appear before the temple deity, Lord Ayyappa in the celibate or Naishtika Brahmachari form – was a “genuine and conscientiously” held one.

The written submissions of senior advocate A.M. Singhvi filed by advocate P.S. Sudheer for the TDB, said any additional derogation of the right to freedom of religion on the ground of “essentiality”, as engrafted by “some judgments”, was impermissible.

“The permissible restrictions/derogations from the right to practise, profess and propagate religion, found in Article 25, were arrived at after detailed and meticulous deliberations, and any other explicit or implied dilution of the right by interposition of other judicial restrictions would break the delicate and intricate system of checks and balances envisioned by the framers [of the Constitution],” the TDB said.

The Board said the limited question the top court could determine was whether a belief or practice of the community was in fact a part of its religion.

“This, it has been repeatedly held, is required to be judged from the standpoint of the subjective belief of the community professing such belief or practice. A secular judge is bound to accept that belief, and it is not open for him to sit in judgment on that belief,” the TDB argued.