Ex-TDB chief’s alleged claims and CPI(M) silence rekindle Sabarimala row

The politically sensitive issue of women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple resurfaced in Kerala on Sunday (June 14) following media reports of alleged disclosures by former TDB president A Padmakumar regarding the events surrounding the entry of two women of menstruating age into the hill shrine in 2019.

Padmakumar, a former CPI(M) MLA who has distanced himself from the party after being named an accused in the Sabarimala gold loss case and subsequently jailed, is yet to publicly address the media following his release on bail.

The CPI(M), however, appeared reluctant to respond to the reported claims, with state secretary MV Govindan saying any clarification should come from Padmakumar himself.

Padmakumar’s claims

Media reports claimed that Padmakumar, then president of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), told close associates that he and senior police officer S Sreejith were deliberately kept away from Sannidhanam on the day two women entered the Sabarimala temple following the Supreme Court verdict.

Also read: Sabarimala to go cashless, use AI for crowd management this season

The reports further claimed that Padmakumar alleged that the move was orchestrated by a “highly influential person” with considerable sway in both the party and the then Left government.

He also reportedly claimed that he had been asked to avoid travelling to Sabarimala on that day and instead proceed to Thiruvananthapuram.

Organisational action likely

The reported revelations surfaced at a time when the CPI(M) leadership indicated that organisational action could be initiated against Padmakumar in connection with the Sabarimala gold loss case.

When the media sought the party’s response to the reports, Govindan said the matter should be clarified by Padmakumar himself.

“It is not our responsibility to respond to all these allegations. Those questions should be directed to Padmakumar. After he came out of jail in connection with the Sabarimala gold loss case, he was removed from all party responsibilities,” Govindan told reporters.

Also read: Sabarimala case: Can Constitution override religious customs? 9 judges to decide

He further said that any organisational action against Padmakumar would be decided by the CPI(M)’s Pathanamthitta district committee. “The district committee is the competent authority to take organisational action. They will surely take an appropriate decision,” he said.

Supreme Court’s judgment

The Sabarimala women’s entry issue remains one of the most contentious political and social controversies in Kerala in recent years.

In September 2018, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, struck down the centuries-old practice that barred women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the hill shrine, holding that the restriction violated constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom of worship.

The verdict triggered widespread protests across Kerala, with a section of Ayyappa devotees and Sangh Parivar organisations opposing the implementation of the judgment and accusing the then CPI(M)-led LDF government of “attempting to interfere” with temple traditions.

Protests and challenges

The controversy intensified in January 2019 when two women of menstruating age entered the Sabarimala temple under police protection, becoming the first to do so after the SC verdict.

Also read: SC rebukes lawyers' body over Sabarimala PIL: 'Are you country's chief priest?'

The development led to massive protests, political confrontations and legal challenges. The Left government headed by then Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan had defended its actions, maintaining that it was duty-bound to implement the Supreme Court’s order.

The apex court later referred a batch of petitions raising broader questions on religious practices and gender justice to a larger bench. The issue remains pending before the court.

(With agency inputs)