DATE: 13/11/2025
COURT: High Court of Kerala
BENCH: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. &
Justice K.V. Jayakumar
FACTS:
The petitioner, a lawyer and devotee of
Lord Ayyappa, obtained a Virtual Queue e-pass for darshan at Sabarimala on
17.11.2025. He claimed that despite this, there was no clear public
notification regarding the opening of the Traditional Forest Route (Kanana
Patha) from Erumeli to Sannidhanam. The authorities had indicated that the
route would open only on 17.11.2025 itself, the day the temple opens for the
Mandala season, which would make it impossible for pilgrims holding passes for
that day to undertake the customary forest trek. He argued that unless the route
opened by 15.11.2025, devotees would be forced to abandon the traditional
pilgrimage. The petitioner also alleged that the Travancore Devaswom Board
(TDB) and the Forest Department failed to publish timely and transparent
information, causing hardship to pilgrims who prepare rigorously for the trek.
The respondents including the Government,
TDB, and Forest Department filed statements explaining that the route lies deep
inside the ecologically sensitive Periyar Tiger Reserve, where access must be
regulated strictly in accordance with the approved Tiger Conservation Plan
(2022–2032). They stated that the Thavalams (resting shelters) and eco-friendly
facilities along the route require extensive preparation and can only be made
operational from 17.11.2025. They emphasized that the route passes through
critical wildlife corridors and rugged terrain, requiring coordinated action by
multiple departments to ensure safety. The authorities denied the allegation of
inadequate communication, stating that relevant information and guidelines were
published through the official “Ayyan” mobile application.
ISSUES:
The principal issues before the Court were
whether the delayed opening of the Kanana Patha violated the petitioner’s
constitutional rights, whether the authorities could be compelled to open the
Traditional Route earlier than 17.11.2025, and whether such delay amounted to
an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner’s right to practice his religion
under Article 25. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether
administrative and environmental limitations justified the regulatory controls
imposed on the traditional forest trek.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court dismissed the writ petition,
holding that the petitioner could not demand that the Traditional Route be
opened earlier solely for his convenience. It upheld the authorities’ decision
to open the Kanana Patha on 17.11.2025, finding that the restrictions were
essential for safety, environmental protection, and proper coordination across
multiple departments. The Court ruled that such regulatory measures do not
violate Article 25, as the mode of reaching Sabarimala is not an essential
religious practice.
The Court emphasized that the Traditional
Route passes through an ecologically fragile and highly sensitive region within
the Periyar Tiger Reserve. Only a limited number of pilgrims use this long
forest trek, yet even this small number poses serious environmental,
logistical, and safety challenges. Past tragedies, including the deadly
stampedes of 1999 and 2011, demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of
unregulated pilgrimages. The Court noted that unrestricted access leads to
ecological degradation, risk of forest fires, accumulation of plastic waste
harmful to wildlife, and significant human–animal conflict. Given these
realities, strict regulation, coordinated planning, and adherence to the Tiger
Conservation Plan (2022–2032) were indispensable. The forest is not a transit
corridor but a living ecosystem, and the State has a constitutional obligation
to protect it.
The Court further held that the
petitioner’s claim of a violation of religious freedom was unfounded. While
Article 25 protects the right to practice religion, it is subject to public
order, morality, health, and other constitutional mandates. The Court reiterated
that the manner or route by which a devotee reaches Sabarimala is not an
essential religious practice, nor is it mandated by scripture. The aim of the
pilgrimage, darshan and rituals remains fully achievable by routes other than
the forest path. Moreover, the opening of the Kanana Patha requires
coordination among the Police, Forest Department, Health Services, Disaster
Management authorities, and TDB, and the date of 17.11.2025 was decided after
due consultation. The authorities had also disseminated information through the
Ayyan app. The Court concluded that administrative feasibility, environmental
conservation, safety considerations, and the precautionary principle fully
justified the decision, leaving no grounds for interference.
ANALYSIS:
The dispute centered on a devotee’s claim
that the Traditional Forest Route (Kanana Patha) to Sabarimala should have been
opened before 17.11.2025 so that pilgrims could perform the customary trek.
However, the Court found that the petitioner’s grievance stemmed more from
personal inconvenience than from any constitutional violation. The route lies
entirely within the Periyar Tiger Reserve, a highly sensitive ecological zone
governed by the Tiger Conservation Plan (2022–2032). Opening the route requires
complex logistical preparation, readying rest shelters, ensuring wildlife
safety, coordinating police and forest staff, and preparing medical and
disaster-management mechanisms. The Court noted that such administrative and
environmental constraints legitimately limit when the route can open, and these
safeguards serve compelling public purposes. Therefore, the authorities’
decision to open the path only from 17.11.2025 was neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable.
On the constitutional issue, the Court held
that Article 25 does not guarantee a devotee the right to choose a particular
route to a pilgrimage site. The essential religious practice of the Sabarimala
pilgrimage lies in performing rituals and obtaining darshan, not in the mode or
pathway of travel. Since alternative access routes were available and the
petitioner’s right to worship remained intact, no fundamental right was
violated. The regulatory measures were justified under public order, health,
environmental protection, and the precautionary principle, constitutional
grounds that permit reasonable restrictions. Given the ecological fragility of
the forest route, historical stampede tragedies, and the need for coordinated
inter-departmental preparedness, the Court concluded that judicial interference
was unwarranted and upheld the State’s decision to regulate the opening of the
Kanana Patha.
info@adhwaitha.com