Sabarimala row reopens in Kerala after former TDB Chief’s claims
Alleged disclosures by former Travancore Devaswom Board president A. Padmakumar about the 2019 Sabarimala women’s entry reignited controversy in Kerala. CPI(M) leaders rejected the claims, while the episode revived debates over the implementation of the Supreme Court verdict and related protests
Thiruvananthapuram: The politically sensitive Sabarimala women’s entry issue resurfaced in Kerala on Sunday following media reports of alleged disclosures by former TDB president A Padmakumar regarding the events surrounding the entry of women of menstruating age into the hill shrine in 2019.
The CPI(M), however, appeared reluctant to respond to the reported claims, with former CM and Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan and state secretary M V Govindan rejecting Padmakumar’s allegations.
Media reports claimed that Padmakumar, then president of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), had 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.
The reports further claimed that Padmakumar had alleged that the move was orchestrated by a “highly influential person” with considerable sway in both the party and the then Left government.
He is also reported to have claimed that he had been asked to avoid travelling to Sabarimala on that day and instead proceed to Thiruvananthapuram.
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 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.
While addressing a press conference here, Vijayan rejected reported claims of Padmakumar, saying no such incident had taken place. “That is not something I am aware of. Because no such issue had arisen. The fact is that there was no need for the Chief Minister’s Office to keep him away from Sabarimala,” he said.
Asked about reports of Padmakumar writing an autobiography detailing these alleged episodes, Vijayan said there was nothing unusual about people writing autobiographies.
“Writing an autobiography is not something new these days. Many people write autobiographies. But that will not bring about any change in the decisions taken by the party,” he said, apparently indicating that it would have no bearing on any party action against Padmakumar. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
