Political parties in Kerala to manipulate religious sentiments in elections
By Dr. Gyan Pathak
With the Supreme Court scheduling the petitions challenging its 2018 Judgment allowing women to enter into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala for hearing before a nine-judge constitution bench from April 7 to 22, it is most likely to impact elections not only in Kerala but all 5 states and UTs, because the time of hearing is overlapping with the elections to be held around this time, and also on account of hearing of similar petitions clubbed with it, including the right of Muslim women to enter mosques, Parsi women who married out of their faith to enter their religious place or worship, and the female genital mutilation practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra Shia Muslim community.
Before going into detail how it could be a turning point in Constitution law as well as politics in the country, we need to take into consideration first what is Sabrimala case of Kerala. The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala traditionally barred menstrual age women aged roughly 10–50 from entering, a custom rooted in devotees’ belief in Lord Ayyappa’s celibacy. In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down this exclusion as unconstitutional, allowing women of all ages to enter the shrine. That led to large protests, strikes and sustained political controversy in the state.
Left Democratic Front (LDF) led by Communist Party of India (Marxist) CPI(M) has supported the Supreme Court verdict and implementation of women’s entry, seeing it as part of gender equality and reform. However, ahead of 2026 polls, the government have become more cautious and ambiguous, emphasising pilgrim welfare, consensus and harmony rather than taking a firm ideological or legal position. Leaders have suggested party and government positions may not be identical, and have avoided clear public endorsement until the Supreme Court hearing. LDF is clearly trying to repair trust with conservative Hindu communities, that opposed 2018 verdict, even hosting events like a Global Ayyappa Sangamam to broaden appeal. LDF is reposition itself, but the government will have to take a firm stand in the Supreme Court.
As for the chief opposition in the state United Democratic Front (UDF) is concerned, state congress leaders have criticised the LDF government for ambiguity and demanded it clarify whether it will uphold or withdraw support for the 2018 verdict in the Supreme Court context. Some Congress leaders frame their own position as standing by “traditions and sentiments of devotees”, appealing to voters who oppose changes to Sabarimala customs.
At the national level Congress has had mixed or shifting positions on this issue, sometimes supporting constitutional equality and at other times seeking to align with local sentiment. They are trying to take advantage by highlighting LDF’s ambiguity or weaknesses on the issue.
National Democratic Alliance (NDA), especially BJP have strongly opposed the 2018 verdict and campaigned against women’s entry, treating the issue as central to protecting Hindu tradition. This stance has been used to mobilise Hindu cultural sentiment, especially among communities that felt alienated by the implementation of the judgment. Though BJP has little base in Kerala, the party is emphasising this issue to consolidate its social base among Hindus.
Indian Union Muslim League, an ally of UDF, has opposed the Supreme Court’s verdict on Sabarimala and generally supports preservation of age-old religious customs. Its position dovetails with the sentiments of conservative religious voters in the state, and that messaging influences UDF dynamics.
Since the timing of the Supreme Court hearing is politically sensitive, parties may tailor their messaging to either support tradition to appeal to conservative and religious voters, or champion constitutional principles to appeal to progressive voters. It will polarise voters on religious ground and communities may shift their allegiance to political parties.
The most important thing is that the nine-judge constitution bench review will not be confined to one Sabarimala temple, but it would examine the broader constitutional question about the scope of religious freedom under Article 25-26, the essential religious practices doctrine, and how these interact with equality under Article 14-15 and dignity of women. Therefore, the outcome will be potentially significant, and will impact not on Hindus but Muslims, Parsi, and other women also. It is at this point, the hearing could mark a turning point in Indian constitutional law, and may redefine the constitutional balance between faith and fundamental right.
Given the posturing of the political parties, CPI(M) is likely to claim vindication of its 2018 stand. At national level, the Left could express support for constitutionalism, but in states with strong conservative religious bases, it may tread cautiously to avoid backlash.
Congress is likely to adopt a calibrated position – Publicly talking for gender justice and will avoid direct confrontation with religious establishments. Congress may try to reclaim “constitutional protector” space without appearing anti-faith.
BJP Faces a strategic dilemma: Opposing the judgment risks appearing anti-women, and supporting it risks alienating traditional religious constituencies. Therefore, it would like to frame the issue as “judicial overreach into faith” rather than oppose equality per se. It also may emphasise legislative reform over judicial activism.
As for Muslim community politics, its religious bodies especially conservative clerical bodies may argue for autonomy under Article 26. Reformist Muslims are in minority and may not have much impact. Political parties (especially Congress and regional secular parties) may avoid aggressively pushing reform to prevent polarisation.
National political narrative may be influenced by the hearing during the elections is foregone conclusion. Uniform Civil Code issue may be brought forward again for religious polarisation. BJP could argue that piecemeal judicial reform should give space to comprehensive reform. (IPA Service)
