Gods' homes, men's courts, women's rights

For decades, the Hindu temple at Sabarimala has drawn media attention and the occasional lawsuit because of its ban on women aged ten to fifty. Most recently, popular campaigns for expanding women's access to temples have revived a twelve-year-old public interest suit before the Indian Supreme Court. The petitioners in that suit argue that Sabarimala's ban, though earlier recognized as an "essential practice" of Ayyappan worship, violates constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom. Opponents counter that the ban is in keeping with constitutional guarantees that religious dettonthiatiotis may govent their intenial ttlfitirs and keep control over their religious institutions. This article provides a "state of the.field" overview with respect to essential practices jurisprudence and the Sabarimala dispute on women's entry, drawing on case law and media coverage to construct a history of the Sabarimala dispute writ large and to con textualize the current litigation within that broader history.