Kerala HC says no to opening Sabarimala forest route ahead of schedule

The Kerala High Court has refused to allow a lawyer’s plea to open the traditional forest route (kanana patha) to Sabarimala ahead of the date fixed by the authorities.

A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar held that delaying the opening of the route does not violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The court noted that Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, but it is subject to restrictions related to public order, morality, and health.

Since the traditional path passes through ecologically sensitive areas, including the Periyar Tiger Reserve, the Bench observed that the state has a duty to prioritise the safety of pilgrims as well as wildlife.

The Court said that delaying the opening of the forest route does not violate religious freedom. It explained that the path used to reach the temple is only a way to get there, not a religious requirement. So, the route itself cannot be considered an essential part of the faith.

The petitioner had obtained a virtual queue/e-pass for November 17, 2025, and claimed there was no clarity on when the traditional route from Erumeli to Sannidhanam would open. He sought directions to allow the forest trek at least two days earlier.

The State submitted that the date was fixed after consultations with district collectors, forest officials and other departments. The route spans 35–45 km of dense forests inhabited by tigers, elephants, bears, leopards and wild boar, making regulation essential to prevent ecological damage and human-wildlife conflict.

Officials also pointed to the 2011 stampede that led to stricter crowd-management measures, including the introduction of the e-pass system.

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests informed the Court that access through the traditional route is allowed only on the first day of the season, in line with the Tiger Conservation Plan. Entries are strictly regulated for the safety of pilgrims and wildlife, and guidelines are shared through the “Ayyan” mobile app.

The Court expressed concern that there is currently no cap on the number of people allowed to use the traditional route, raising risks of littering, straying off the path, cooking, or creating temporary shelters in the forest. The Bench stressed that the reserve forest is “not a transit route but a living ecosystem.”

It advised the Travancore Devaswom Board, the state government and the Forest Department to determine and notify the maximum number of pilgrims allowed per day, publish carrying-capacity details, and monitor Sannidhanam in real time. It also recommended a real-time integrated control room linking key departments to monitor footfall, crowd density, and medical emergencies.

Observing that multiple departments, including Police, Health, Forest, Fire and Rescue, and NDRF, had already deliberated on the opening date, the Court declined to interfere. The writ petition was dismissed.
(With LiveLaw inputs)