BJP’s Sabarimala Critique Revives Echoes of Quit India’s Mass Mobilisation

Kummanam Rajasekharan, a BJP national executive member, condemned the UDF government on 23 September 2026 for refusing to drop criminal cases against participants of the 2018 Sabarimala protests and for neglecting basic infrastructure ahead of the Mandalam‑Makaravilakku pilgrimage. The remarks revive a familiar pattern in Indian politics where mass dissent triggers legal and administrative battles that echo the nation’s freedom‑struggle legacy.

Historical Parallel – From Quit India to Sabarimala

The 2018 agitation at Sabarimala, described by Rajasekharan as “completely justified,” mobilised millions of devotees to defend a centuries‑old custom. Like the Quit India Movement launched by the All India Congress Committee on 8 August 1942, the Sabarimala protests combined religious sentiment with a demand for procedural fairness. Both movements faced swift state repression, extensive arrests, and a contested legal narrative that continues to shape public policy.

• ▸2018: mass protests erupted after the Supreme Court lifted the ban on women of all ages entering Sabarimala.
• ▸Millions of devotees participated, citing protection of tradition.
• ▸The state filed criminal cases against several protest leaders, many of which remain pending.

The legacy of 1942’s civil‑disobedience campaign endures in contemporary disputes over the balance between constitutional rights and cultural practices.

Legal Framework – Freedom of Expression Meets Temple Administration

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, yet the state can invoke public order to curb dissent. The Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment interpreted this right in the context of religious equality, allowing women of all ages to worship at Sabarimala while affirming the need for “reasonable restrictions.” The Travancore Devaswom Board (Travancore Devaswom Board)—the statutory body managing the shrine—must therefore reconcile judicial directives with administrative capacity.

• ▸Article 19(1)(a) protects expression unless restricted by law.
• ▸The 2018 Supreme Court verdict upheld gender‑neutral entry, citing equality.
• ▸Criminal prosecutions against protestors invoke sections of the Indian Penal Code for “unlawful assembly.”

The tension between constitutional guarantees and temple governance continues to fuel legal challenges and political rhetoric.

Pilgrimage Infrastructure – Gaps in Governance

With only 55 days left for the annual Mandalam-Makaravilakku season, Rajasekharan warned that the state and the TDB have failed to address critical infrastructure deficits. Roads leading to the hill‑top shrine remain riddled with potholes, and repair work slated for May 2026 has not commenced. Essential services—drinking water, health‑care, and sanitation—are reportedly absent, raising safety concerns for the expected influx of devotees.

• ▸55 days remain before the pilgrimage season opens.
• ▸Roads to Sabarimala still have unfilled potholes.
• ▸Repair works scheduled for May 2026 have not started.
• ▸No systematic provision of drinking water, medical aid, or sanitation.

These shortcomings expose the limits of the National Disaster Management Authority’s coordination role in large‑scale religious gatherings.

Political Calculus – Mobilising the Past for Present Gains

Rajasekharan’s critique underscores how parties weaponise historical narratives. By invoking the 2018 protests as a “justified movement,” the BJP seeks to portray the UDF as indifferent to devotees’ safety and to the rule of law. The demand to withdraw pending cases aligns with a broader strategy of framing legal inertia as political neglect—a tactic reminiscent of the Congress’s 1942 call for “Do or Die” against colonial oppression.

• ▸Kummanam Rajasekharan is a BJP national executive member.
• ▸The UDF government currently administers Kerala’s pilgrimage affairs.
• ▸The TDB, as a statutory board, is responsible for temple management.

The episode illustrates how contemporary electoral battles echo the mobilising power of historic mass movements.

Way Forward – Legal and Administrative Remedies

To resolve the lingering cases, the state could invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granting the court discretion to stay prosecutions pending appeal. Simultaneously, the TDB must fast‑track infrastructure upgrades under the Right to Information Act 2005 to ensure transparency and accountability. A coordinated effort between the state, the TDB, and the National Disaster Management Authority could mitigate safety risks and restore public confidence ahead of the pilgrimage.

• ▸Section 438 allows courts to stay criminal proceedings.
• ▸The Right to Information Act 2005 mandates disclosure of project timelines.
• ▸Joint monitoring by the TDB and NDMA can streamline safety protocols.

Addressing both legal redress and on‑ground preparedness will determine whether the Sabarimala season proceeds without the spectre of past unrest.