Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1

FACTS

The Sabarimala temple in Kerala is one of the most famous Hindu pilgrimage sites in India. It is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, who is worshipped as a celibate deity or Naishtika Brahmachari. For many years, women between the ages of 10 and 50 — typically considered to be of menstruating age — were not allowed to enter the temple. This restriction was supported by religious custom and by a rule under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, which allowed the temple authorities to limit entry for certain groups if required by custom.

A group called the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition in the Supreme Court in 2006, arguing that this exclusion of women was discriminatory and unconstitutional. They claimed it violated women’s fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion under the Constitution of India.

The temple was administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board, which defended the restriction. They argued that the exclusion was based on religious belief, not discrimination. According to them, allowing women of menstruating age would disturb the celibate nature of the deity and the spiritual atmosphere of the temple.

The case raised fundamental questions about the conflict between religious customs and constitutional rights. The Court had to decide whether this practice was a legitimate part of religion or an unconstitutional form of gender discrimination.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Is the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala temple based on their age and menstruation a violation of Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution?
2. Does this practice form an “essential religious practice” under Article 25, and therefore protected from judicial interference?
3. Are devotees of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala a separate religious denomination under Article 26, and can they manage their own affairs in religious matters?
4. Is Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, which permits exclusion of women, constitutionally valid?

CONTENTIONS

Petitioners (Indian Young Lawyers Association and Others)

• They argued that excluding women of a certain age group based solely on menstruation is discriminatory and violates Article 14 (equality) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination based on sex).
• They claimed that women have the right to worship, and this cannot be denied just because of their biological features.
• They pointed out that Lord Ayyappa is worshipped in other temples across India where no such restrictions exist. Therefore, the idea that this exclusion is an essential part of the religion is unfounded.
• The petitioners also stated that such exclusion is based on impurity attached to menstruation, which they argued is a form of untouchability, violating Article 17.
• They also challenged the legality of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, arguing it conflicts with fundamental rights and should be struck down.

Respondents (Travancore Devaswom Board and Others)

• They defended the restriction by saying it is part of a centuries-old custom and is based on the unique character of the deity, who is a celibate god.
• They claimed that devotees of Lord Ayyappa form a separate religious denomination, which gives them rights under Article 26 to manage their own religious affairs.
• They emphasized that faith and belief should not be tested using logic or constitutional standards. According to them, religious practices are protected from judicial interference unless they are dangerous or in violation of public order, morality, or health.
• They also defended Rule 3(b), stating that it is in line with religious practices and should be allowed.

RATIONALE

The Supreme Court bench (5 judges) delivered a 4:1 majority verdict on 28 September 2018, declaring that the ban on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional.

1. Violation of Article 14 – Right to Equality

The Court held that excluding women based on a biological factor like menstruation is arbitrary and discriminatory. Such a classification does not meet the test of “reasonable classification” under Article 14. Women have an equal right to access public temples, and this right cannot be taken away by custom.

2. Not an Essential Religious Practice

The Court applied the “essential religious practices” test, which examines whether a certain practice is so essential to a religion that removing it would change the nature of the religion. The Court concluded that the exclusion of women is not essential to the Hindu religion, nor to the worship of Lord Ayyappa.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud wrote:

“Religion cannot become a cover to deny women their right to worship. To treat women as the children of a lesser God is to blink at the Constitution itself.”

3. Not a Separate Religious Denomination

The Court rejected the claim that the worshippers at Sabarimala form a separate religious group. Since Ayyappa devotees are part of the larger Hindu fold, they cannot claim rights under Article 26 to manage religious affairs in a way that violates others’ fundamental rights.

4. Rule 3(b) is Unconstitutional

The Court struck down Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, which allowed the temple to restrict women’s entry. The rule was declared ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Constitution because it violates fundamental rights.

5. Fundamental Rights Apply to Temples

The majority held that a public temple cannot deny access to women, as it is not a private space. Fundamental rights, especially the right to equality and non-discrimination, must be enforced in such public institutions.

DISSENTING OPINION – Justice Indu Malhotra

Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole dissenting judge. She argued that courts should not interfere in matters of faith, especially when the practice is centuries old and accepted by a section of the community.

She stated:

“What constitutes an essential religious practice is for the religious community to decide, not the court.”

According to her, the Sabarimala practice was not about discrimination but about respecting the celibate nature of the deity, and therefore should be protected under Article 25.

Her dissent has been widely debated and has gained support from many who believe in non-interference with religious traditions.

DEFECTS OF LAW

1. The “Essential Practices” Doctrine is Vague

This doctrine — that only essential religious practices are protected — has been criticized for giving too much power to courts to decide what is or isn’t essential to a religion. It leads to inconsistency and subjective interpretations.

2. Lack of Clarity on Article 17

Some judges felt that the exclusion of women based on menstruation is similar to untouchability, while others disagreed. The lack of a clear stand on this issue has weakened the broader social message against menstrual stigma.

3. Social vs Legal Reality

Even after the verdict, women were still prevented from entering the temple, and many were attacked or harassed for trying. This shows a gap between legal change and societal acceptance — an issue that needs more attention.

4. Review & Referral to Larger Bench (2020)

In 2019, the Court agreed to hear review petitions, and in 2020, it referred the matter to a 7-judge bench to decide larger constitutional questions on religious freedom, equality, and judicial review. While the original verdict has not been overturned, this move has created confusion about its finality.

INFERENCE

This case is a milestone in Indian constitutional law. It affirms that no custom or tradition can override the Constitution, especially when it comes to gender equality and human dignity.

The verdict challenges deep-rooted patriarchal mindsets and opens the door for greater gender justice in religious institutions. It also sends a strong message that fundamental rights are not just ideals on paper, but enforceable guarantees.

However, the dissent by Justice Malhotra reminds us that constitutional reform must be sensitive to faith and belief systems. Courts must strike a balance between reform and respect — a challenge that will continue to shape future jurisprudence.

Despite social resistance and legal complexities, the Sabarimala judgment remains a progressive step in making India’s temples, and perhaps one day all public spaces, equally accessible to all citizens, regardless of gender.

Citation:

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1