Kerala High Court Tightens Videography Rules at Sabarimala Temple

In a suo motu case prompted by a Special Commissioner’s report, the Kerala High Court has introduced comprehensive guidelines to better regulate photography and videography within the revered Sabarimala temple complex. The order reflects growing concerns over intrusive use of recording devices during key rituals, potential security risks, and respect for the sanctity of the pilgrimage.

The division bench, led by Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S., initiated the proceedings after reviewing evidence of unauthorized videography captured during the crucial Mandala–Makaravilakku festival. One incident involved a temporary staff member at the Emergency Operating Centre who recorded the “Harivarasanam” ritual near the Sopanam, while another involved press photographers climbing railings to record the “Thanka Anki” procession. Photographs submitted to the court revealed media personnel using tripods in areas not only close to, but sometimes within, the inner sanctum. These instances were found to directly breach earlier judicial directives banning videography above the temple’s sacred eighteen steps, the “Pathinettampadi,” and raised questions about enforcement and the need for updated instructions covering other sensitive temple zones.

Recognizing the status of Sabarimala as a declared Special Security Zone under the Kerala Police Act, the High Court extended the scope of restrictions. It imposed stringent prohibitions on the use of “helicams” (drones used for aerial recording) within the temple premises, specifying that while police surveillance using such devices is permissible for security purposes, media access is strictly forbidden. The court made clear that this ban applies throughout the complex, including but not limited to Pathinettampadi, Sopanam, Melethirumuttam, and areas adjacent to the sanctum sanctorum.

The court also targeted low-level encroachments on ritual space by professional camera crews. It mandated the removal of tripods and other heavy mountings from railings and roof spaces integral to ritual conduct. It advised that live telecasts of sacred moments like the Makarajyothi must occur only at designated spots, selected in consultation with temple authorities and the Chief Police Coordinator, and strictly with prior permissions from both the Devaswom Board and police.

Institutional responsibility featured prominently in the court’s directives. The Travancore Devaswom Board, working alongside the Devaswom Commissioner, temple Tantri (chief priest), and the Chief Police Coordinator, was instructed to convene meetings and adopt a clear policy regarding recording in and around the sanctum and Melethirumuttam. This policy, to be guided by religious sensibilities and security considerations, must be filed with the court alongside the Special Commissioner’s report. The court emphasized that identity cards should be issued only to accredited media personnel who have been vetted by their organizations and approved by temple security, ensuring media movement within the inner complex remains limited and controlled.

A central concern undergirding the order was the sanctity of pilgrim experience. The court observed that unauthorized recording and media logistics in sacred areas not only breach ritual customs but also disturb devotees during prayer. In this context, it urged that videography be conducted discreetly and in ways that avoid intrusion. Officials were reminded that anything less could violate the dignity and decorum of worship.

While reinforcing media restrictions, the judges acknowledged the need for balance. They recognized that permission for videography could still be extended in non-sensitive areas or during broader ceremonies, provided formal vetting, advance scheduling, and security clearances are in place. This precision ensures that religious solemnity is preserved without impeding journalistic or cultural record-keeping outside core rituals.

A recurring theme was the need to view court orders as ongoing safeguards rather than one-time verdicts. The bench noted past tendencies where temple restrictions were followed only during high-profile festivals and allowed to lapse at other times. To prevent repetition, the court mandated proactive enforcement by local police, Devaswom staff, and Special Commissioner’s office, with recurring inspections to ensure compliance.

The judgment places responsibility for oversight squarely on institutional leadership rather than judicial hands. Rather than imposing strict penalties, the court relied on a system of accountability through documented permissions, periodic reporting, and presence of temple staff at gate points. It implicitly drew a line between security-driven recording by authorized personnel and unfettered media videography motivated by coverage ambitions.

Beyond ritual sanctity, security considerations remain at the forefront. The Special Security Zone classification allows surveillance for crowd management, yet the unregulated use of media drones or raised cameras that might be weaponized or intrude upon ritual zones cannot be ignored. The court emphasized that security tools, not media equipment, should serve to monitor crowd movement—a line crossed when cameras are wielded in narrow ritual spaces.

Throughout, the tone of the judgment remains respectful of Sabarimala’s religious significance. Rather than hostile to media, the court focuses on regulating access; it treats videography as a privilege, not a right. It reiterates that ritual traditions deserve protection from unfiltered intrusion and that the permission to record must be granted only with solemnity and discretion.

The guidelines also include a nod to organizational reform and compliance. The Travancore Devaswom Board was reminded of its dual role in promoting pilgrim welfare and safeguarding temple practices. The coordination mechanism mandated situates policy-making at the intersection of religious leadership, administrative control, and legal oversight—ensuring tradition, governance, and law come together.

In closing, the Kerala High Court’s judgment reflects a judicial posture that is modern in tech sensibility yet deeply deferential to tradition. It protects sanctity while enabling ceremony, security while fostering accountability. By instituting clear, enforceable guidelines, it transforms a reactive response into structured policy meant to endure across future festival seasons and evolving media practices.