Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors.

Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. (2018) MANU/SC/1094/2018

Supreme Court of India 

Dipak Mishra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud

Constitution Bench

28.09.2018

Petitioners- Indian young Lawyers and female devotees approached the court through a PIL, questioning the prohibition on women between 10 and 50 years from accessing the Sabarimala temple on the ground that it violated constitutional rights.  

Respondents- State of Kerala, Travancore Devaswom Board, Chief Thantri, and other temple authorities, stated that the practice had been followed for many years and was deeply connected to the religious beliefs of the devotees.

Facts of the case-

• Sabarimala Temple, located in Kerala, is a public Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, attracting millions of pilgrims annually from different religions and communities.
• For several decades, a customary practice was followed that prohibited women between the ages of 10 and 50 years (considered the menstruating age) from entering the temple.
• This exclusion was given statutory backing through Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, framed under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.
• The justification for the restriction was based on the belief that Lord Ayyappa is a Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate) and that the presence of women of menstruating age would violate the temple’s customs and usages.
• The Indian Young Lawyers Association, along with other petitioners, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court of India.
• The petition sought:
• The State of Kerala initially supported the petitioners, stating that the exclusion violated constitutional principles of equality and religious freedom.
• The Travancore Devaswom Board and temple authorities opposed the petition, arguing that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa constituted a religious denomination protected under Article 26, and that the restriction was an essential religious practice.
• Due to the substantial constitutional questions involved, particularly concerning gender equality, religious freedom, constitutional morality, and the validity of religious customs, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

• Whether the customary practice of prohibiting women between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Temple violates the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution.

• Whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which allows exclusion of women based on custom, is ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Legislation enabling access to public religious institutions (1965)

• Whether the notions of purity and pollution, and the exclusion of women based on menstruation, are contrary to constitutional morality, equality, dignity, and the prohibition of untouchability under Article 17.

Arguments of the petitioner

Violation of Fundamental Rights (Issue 1)

• Argued that the exclusion of women aged 10–50 years from Sabarimala Temple violates Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of sex discrimination), and 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution.

• Denial of entry deprives women of the right to worship, which is an integral aspect of religious practice.
• Article 25(1) guarantees both inter-faith and intra-faith parity; preventing women from worship violates intra-faith equality.

Ultra Vires Nature of Rule 3(b) (Issue 2)

• Contended that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, allowing exclusion of women based on custom, is ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, which aims to ensure entry for all sections of Hindus.
• The proviso to Section 4(1) cannot be interpreted to override the fundamental rights of women, as the Act’s purpose is liberal and inclusive.

Purity, Pollution, and Menstruation (Issue 3)

• Argued that notions of purity and pollution associated with menstruation are social constructs and patriarchal biases, and cannot justify discrimination or exclusion.
• Exclusion based on menstruation violates constitutional morality, human dignity, equality, and amounts to untouchability prohibited under Article 17.
• Menstrual status is intrinsic to privacy and autonomy, and no religious or constitutional principle can justify restriction.

Arguments of the Respondent

Religious Denomination & Essential Practices (Issue 1 & 2)

• Claimed that devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a religious denomination under Article 26, entitled to manage religious affairs and maintain customs and usages, including restricting the entry of women of menstruating age.
• Exclusion is an essential religious practice, as the deity is a Naishtika Brahmachari, and women’s presence during menstruation allegedly violates celibacy and tradition.
• Rule 3(b) is valid under Section 4(1) proviso, which recognizes customs and usages in managing places of worship for religious denominations.

Alternative Worship (Issue 1)

• Women can worship at other Ayyappa temples, so the restriction at Sabarimala does not violate their right to religious practice in general.

Purity and Tradition (Issue 3)

• The restriction is based on long-standing custom and religious belief, and reflects the essential character of the temple and deity, which is protected under Articles 25 and 26.
• Notions of purity and pollution are integral to the faith and are not discriminatory in the context of religious denomination management.

Judgement

The Supreme Court, by a majority of four judges to one, allowed the writ petition and held that the practice of prohibiting women between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Temple is unconstitutional. The Court concluded that this exclusionary practice violates the fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion guaranteed under Articles 14, 15(1), and 25(1) of the Constitution of India.

The Court emphasised that since the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not fall within the ambit of a religious denomination under Article 26, they cannot claim exclusive managerial rights that override women’s fundamental rights. The restriction on women’s entry was found to be neither an essential nor an integral part of the Hindu religion, and hence not protected by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court also declared Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, as it enforced a discriminatory custom and defeated the very object of the Act, which was enacted to ensure equal access to places of public worship for all sections and classes of Hindus.

Emphasising the concept of constitutional morality, the Court held that social notions of purity and pollution associated with menstruation have no place in a constitutional order founded on dignity, liberty, and equality. Such beliefs cannot be used to justify the exclusion of women from public religious spaces. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his concurring opinion, observed that exclusion based on menstruation amounts to a form of social exclusion akin to untouchability, which is prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Court directed the State of Kerala and the temple authorities to permit the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala Temple and to ensure that adequate measures are taken to safeguard the safety, dignity, and rights of women pilgrims.

Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, holding that matters of religious faith and custom should not ordinarily be interfered with by constitutional courts and that the practice was protected under Article 26. However, the majority view prevailed, and the discriminatory practice was set aside.

Legal Reasoning

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala grounded its reasoning on the principle that constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and liberty prevail over discriminatory religious customs. The Court harmonised the right to freedom of religion with other fundamental rights by relying on established constitutional doctrines and judicial precedents.

To determine whether the Sabarimala Temple was entitled to protection under Article 26, the Court applied the tests for identifying a religious denomination laid down in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (Shirur Mutt Case)

These cases held that a religious denomination must have a distinctive name, a common faith, a common organization, and specific religious tenets. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate denomination, as they were followers of Hinduism without distinct doctrines or organisational structure. Consequently, Article 26 was held to be inapplicable.

While examining whether the exclusion of women was protected as an essential religious practice, the Court relied on the Essential Religious Practices doctrine evolved in the Shirur Mutt Case (1954) and later followed in Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Al. The Court reiterated that only those practices which are fundamental to the religion are protected, and mere long-standing customs do not qualify. It held that the practice of excluding women aged 10–50 years was not essential to Hinduism and therefore not protected under Article 25.

The Court interpreted Article 25(1) in light of gender equality, holding that the right to practise religion is available equally to men and women. In doing so, it drew support from Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, which recognised that freedom of conscience and religious practice is an individual right. The exclusion of women, therefore, amounted to a denial of their personal right to worship and violated intra-faith equality.

In striking down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, the Court applied the doctrine that subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute, as held in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India. Since Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 mandates temple entry for all sections and classes of Hindus, Rule 3(b), which enforced exclusion based on custom, was declared ultra vires.

A significant part of the Court’s reasoning rested on constitutional morality, a concept elaborated in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, where the Court held that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality. Applying this principle, the Court rejected notions of purity and pollution associated with menstruation as unconstitutional. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his concurring opinion, further relied on State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale to expand the understanding of Article 17, holding that practices rooted in purity and impurity, which result in social exclusion, are antithetical to constitutional values.

The Court also drew parallels with Shayara Bano v. Union of India, where discriminatory religious practices were invalidated for violating fundamental rights. By applying the same reasoning, the Court held that gender-based exclusion in religious spaces cannot be constitutionally sustained.

In essence, the ratio decidendi of the judgment is that religious customs and usages that discriminate against women, are not essential to religion, and violate constitutional morality, cannot claim protection under Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Sabarimala judgment is a landmark decision that strengthened the principles of gender equality, dignity, and constitutional morality. The Supreme Court held that customs and religious practices cannot override fundamental rights, especially when they result in discrimination against women. By allowing women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala Temple, the Court reaffirmed that the right to practise religion is an individual right, available equally to men and women. The judgment has lasting significance as it sets a precedent against gender-based exclusion in religious spaces and reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution over discriminatory traditions.

Reference(S):

1. A declaration that Rule 3(b) is unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, 17, 25, and 51A(e) of the Constitution.
2. Directions to the State of Kerala and District Authorities to allow women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala Temple.
3. Issuance of guidelines to ensure the safety and dignity of women pilgrims.