Non-Hindus will no longer be allowed to enter Gangotri Dham, following a unanimous decision taken on Sunday by the Shri Gangotri Temple Committee, a move that has triggered debate over religious access, customary practice and constitutional guarantees in Uttarakhand. The committee said the restriction would apply across the shrine complex at Gangotri and extend to associated sacred sites administered by it, including Mukhba, regarded as the winter abode of Maa Ganga.Announcing the decision, committee office-bearers said the measure was intended to preserve the sanctity of rituals and long-held traditions at the Himalayan shrine. The panel stated that entry would be restricted to devotees who profess the Hindu faith, with priests and temple staff instructed to enforce the rule at access points. The decision was described as unanimous, reflecting what the committee termed a collective view among its members after consultations with local priests and stakeholders.
The committee added that the restriction would also cover the centuries-old Badrinath and Kedarnath temples during periods when administrative oversight overlaps with Gangotri-linked institutions, as well as Mukhba during the winter months when the idol of Ganga is ceremonially shifted there due to heavy snowfall at Gangotri. Temple officials said guidelines would be issued to clarify the scope of the decision and the practical arrangements for implementation during peak pilgrimage seasons.
The move to restrict entry at Gangotri has drawn attention because the Char Dham circuit, which includes Gangotri, Badrinath, Kedarnath and Yamunotri, has historically been open to visitors of different faiths, even as rituals inside sanctums are conducted by Hindu priests. Scholars of religion note that while temple customs vary widely across regions, blanket prohibitions based on religious identity are uncommon in modern times and often face legal scrutiny.
State authorities have said they are examining the committee’s decision to assess its conformity with existing laws governing public places of worship. Senior officials indicated that temple committees enjoy autonomy over ritual practices, but access to public religious sites is also shaped by constitutional principles and judicial precedents. Any restriction that affects the general public, they added, would need to align with statutory provisions and court rulings.
Legal experts point out that courts have previously distinguished between the right to manage religious affairs and the obligation to uphold equality and non-discrimination in public spaces. They note that while denominations can regulate who performs rituals, restricting entry to a place that receives public funding or is administered under state oversight raises complex questions. Past judgments have emphasised that faith-based practices must be balanced against fundamental rights.
Local residents and pilgrimage operators have offered mixed reactions. Some temple priests and members of religious organisations welcomed the decision, arguing that it would protect the spiritual character of the shrine amid rising footfall and commercial pressures. Others expressed concern that the move could deter tourists and pilgrims who visit Gangotri for cultural or spiritual reasons beyond formal worship, potentially affecting livelihoods linked to the pilgrimage economy.
Civil society groups and interfaith advocates have urged dialogue, warning that exclusionary measures could deepen social divides. They have called on authorities to ensure that any policy respects plural traditions associated with Himalayan pilgrimage routes, which have long attracted travellers, scholars and seekers from diverse backgrounds.