Authored By: Roohina Wani
Kashmir law college
Case Name: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)
Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 1; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 Court: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Bench: Dipak Misra (CJI), R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, and InduMalhotra JJ.
Date of Judgment: 28 September 2018
Introduction
The Sabarimala judgment marked a historic turning point in Indian constitutional law, especiallyin the realm of gender justice, religious freedom, and the interpretation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court in this case examined the constitutionality of Rule 3(b) of the KeralaHinduPlaces of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, which prohibited the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years into the Sabarimala temple. The Court’s verdict invalidated the ban, declaring it unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 25, and 17 of the Constitution.
Factual Background
The Sabarimala temple in Kerala is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, a deity believed to be in astateof Naishtika Brahmacharya (eternal celibacy). Due to this belief, women of menstruatingage(10–50 years) were prohibited from entering the temple premises. This practice was codifiedunder Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules framed under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship(Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a PIL under Article 32 seeking to strikedown the ban on the grounds that it violated the constitutional rights of women.
- Issues Raised
- Whether the practice of excluding women constitutes an “essential religious practice” under Article 25.
- Whether the Sabarimala temple has the right to claim the status of a religious denominationunder Article 26.
- Whether the ban on entry of women violates Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution.
- Whether Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires the parent Act and unconstitutional.
Arguments by Petitioners
Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners argued that the exclusion of women amountedto discrimination based on sex, violating Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (non- discrimination), and 25 (freedom of religion).
No Essential Practice: They contended that the practice of excluding women is not an essential religious practice and, therefore, does not warrant protection under Article 25.
Public Temple: Sabarimala is not a separate religious denomination but a public temple, hencesubject to constitutional scrutiny.
Rule 3(b) is Unconstitutional: The rule enabling exclusion was ultra vires the parent legislation, which intended to open Hindu places of worship to all classes and sections.
Arguments by Respondents
Essential Religious Practice: The respondents claimed the practice was based on centuries-oldreligious beliefs central to the identity of the temple.
Religious Denomination: They argued that the Sabarimala temple and its followers formareligious denomination entitled to manage their own affairs under Article 26.
Not Discriminatory: They asserted that the exclusion was not based on gender but on thedeity’scelibate nature.
Doctrine of Judicial Restraint: The Court should refrain from interfering in religious mattersandrespect traditions followed by devotees.
Judgment (Majority Opinion – 4:1)
The majority (CJI Dipak Misra, Justices Nariman, Chandrachud, and Khanwilkar) held that thepractice of barring women was unconstitutional.
Key Observations:
Article 25 and Gender Equality: The right to practice religion is subject to other fundamental rights, including Article 14. Discriminatory practices cannot be protected under the guiseof religious freedom.
Not an Essential Practice: The exclusion of women does not form an essential religious practiceand is, therefore, not protected under Article 25.
Violation of Article 15(1): The practice discriminated solely on the basis of sex and hencecontravened Article 15(1).
Rule 3(b) Ultra Vires: The Rule was found to be violative of the parent Act’s objective andwasstruck down as unconstitutional.
Temple Not a Denomination: The Sabarimala temple does not satisfy the test of a separatereligious denomination as laid down in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [(1954) SCR 1005].
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s Concurring Opinion
Justice Chandrachud emphasized that practices based on notions of purity and menstruationamount to systemic discrimination. He stated that the exclusion perpetuates a formof “untouchability” under Article 17.
“The subversion of women’s equal citizenship is a violation of constitutional morality andindividual dignity.” – Chandrachud J.
Dissenting Opinion – Justice Indu Malhotra
Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, stating that:
Matters of religious faith and practice should not be subject to judicial review unless they contravene public order, morality, or health.
Courts should not determine what constitutes essential religious practices.
The worshippers of Lord Ayyappa form a religious denomination entitled to Article 26 protections.
She cautioned against judicial overreach into religious beliefs and traditions.
- Legal Principles Laid Down
- Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices: Must be determined by constitutional principlesandnot solely by tradition.
- Constitutional Morality: Prevails over individual or community beliefs that perpetuate discrimination.
- Gender Equality: Religious freedom cannot override the fundamental right to equality anddignity.
- Article 17 Broad Interpretation: Discrimination based on notions of purity may fall withinthe ambit of untouchability.
Impact and Aftermath
The verdict was hailed as a landmark for women’s rights and secularism. However, it led to widespread protests in Kerala, with devotees opposing the judgment. Implementation remained contentious, and review petitions were filed.
In Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association [(2020) 2 SCC 1], the SupremeCourt referred the matter to a larger bench to consider broader questions involving religious freedomand gender equality.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala judgment reflects the judiciary’s evolving stance on balancing religious freedomwith constitutional values. While it championed gender justice and questioned patriarchal religious norms, it also raised complex questions about the judiciary’s role in religious matters. The majority opinion advanced the cause of transformative constitutionalism, whereas thedissent reminded us of the importance of respecting religious diversity and judicial restraint.
Reference(S):
Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (2018) 10 SCC 1
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar ofSri Shirur Mutt (1954) SCR 1005
Kantaru Rajeevaru v Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) 2 SCC 1 Constitution of India, arts 14, 15, 17, 25, 26
Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act 1965 Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules 1965
