Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State of Kerala (2018), The Sabrimala Temple Case

Authored By: Aarti Ashok Sharma

MKES College of Law

CASE TITLE AND CITATION

CASE NAME:- Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State of Kerala (2018), The Sabrimala Temple Case

COURT:- Supreme Court of India

CITATION:- Writ Petition (civil) No. 373 of 2006

BENCH:- Deepak Mishra, A.N khanwilkar, Rohintan Nariman, Indu Malhotra, D.Y Chandrachud

PETITIONER:- Indian Young Lawyers Association

RESPONDENTS:-

State of Kerala

Travancore Devaswom Board

ABBREVIATIONS:-

TDB- Travancore Devaswom Board

KHPW- Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules

INTRODUCTION

The Sabrimala judgement addressed the deeply ingrained social discrimination and breathed life into feminist jurisprudence by challenging long standing discriminatory practices based on biological differences. The Indian Constitution’s rights are designed to address social issues and ensure that women are able to enjoy their basic Fundamental rights with dignity and respect.

Sabrimala, one of the largest pilgrimage sites globally, situated in Kerala within the Periyar Tiger Reserve is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa and is managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. In 1991, the Kerala High Court barred women aged 10-50 years from entering the temple, citing tradition. However, in 2006, a PIL challenged this ruling and in 2018, a five judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra lifted the ban, allowing women of all ages to enter. The majority ruled that the restriction violated women’s constitutional rights while Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, citing jurisdictional concerns.

The case highlights tensions between religious practices and gender equality, and it continues to evoke strong sentiments within Indian society.

CASE ANALYSIS

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

The Sabrimala Temple, a Hindu shrine in Kerala, is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, who is believed to be an eternal celibate. The Temple is managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board( TDB). The TDB had imposed a restriction that barred women between the ages of 10-50 years, who are menstruating, from entering the temple.
The restriction was grounded in the belief that Swani Ayyappa, the temple’s deity, is a Naishtika Brahmachari (an eternal celibate), symbolising purity, which his followers believed could be compromised by the presence of menstruating women. This practice was considered an essential aspect of their religious beliefs and it’s violation was thought to interfere with spiritual progress.
Based on this, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965 prohibited women from entering the Sabrimala Temple. In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld the restriction, stating that women between the ages of 10-50 years were traditionally barred from worshipping at Sabrimala Temple and that this was not unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Chief Priest and the Tantrik ( temple priest) were the sole authorities to determine religious traditions.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association, along with five others, filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the ban and seeking a ruling to permit women of all ages to enter the temple without restriction.

TIMELINE OF THE CASE:-

In 1990, a petition was filed in the Kerala High Court seeking to enforce a ban on the entry of women into the Sabrimala Temple.
The Court, in 1991 upheld the ban, restricting women aged 10-50 years from entering the temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging this restriction and advocating for the entry of women in the same age group .
Two years later, in 2008, the case was referred to a three judge Bench.
In 2016, the Supreme Court raised questions regarding the constitutionality of the ban and eventually transferred the case to a five Judge Constitution Bench.
In 2018, the Supreme Court, in a 4:1 ruling, lifted the ban on women entering Sabrimala temple, citing violations of their rights to equality and worship. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing that courts could not interfere in religious practices unless they cause direct harm.

LEGAL ISSUES OF THE CASE:-

Gender Equality and Non-discrimination:- Whether the practice of excluding women on ground of biological factor amounts to “ discrimination “ and violates Articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution?
Essence of religious practices:- Whether this exclusionary practice constitutes an essential religious practice under Article 25 of Indian Constitution?
Denominational Character:- Whether Sabrimala worshippers constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26 and can manage it’s own affairs in matters of religion?
Gender Discrimination:- Whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules permits religious denomination to ban entry of women and if so could it not violate Article 14 & 15(3) of Constitution?

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONER’S

The petitioner’s contended that the Sabrimala temple’s practices are similar to those of other Hindu temples, not a separate denomination.
The petitioner’s argued that the restrictions on women’s entry are not essential ceremonial aspects of Hinduism and restricting their entry is not central to the religion.
The petitioner’s asserted that the presence of women does not affect a devotee’s celibacy, as worshippers visit the temple to seek blessings, rather than to take oaths.
They claimed that the phrase “at any such time” in Rule 3(b) should not lead to the complete exclusion of women from the temple.
The petitioner’s highlighted that Article 14 requires that discriminatory laws have a rational basis; the claim of pollution from women’s entry violates equality principles.
The petitioner’s have also put forth that the entry restrictions breaches Article 15(1) by discriminating based on sex and Article 25, which ensures Hindu women’s right to access public temples.

RESPONDENT’S

Respondents argued that the temple’s practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age(10-50 years) was a long-standing tradition rooted in the temple’s custom and beliefs.
They contended that the right to practice religion, as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, includes the right to adhere to specific rituals and customs, even if they are discriminatory.
This customary practice does not promote the discrimination based on caste i.e. untouchability so it is not violative of Article 17 of the Constitution of India.
The respondents contends that the 41-day Vrutham which involves separating from family ties for the Sabrimala pilgrimage is difficult for women due to menstruation, which traditionally restricts their participation in religious activities, as noted in the Kerala Thantra Samuchayam chapter 10, Verse II.
The Respondent asserts that the Vrutham is an ancient custom, permitting only women who are in menopause to enter the temple.
The respondent clarifies that 41-day Vrutham requirement also applies to men who are unable to complete it due to family events like births and deaths are also barred from the pilgrimage.

JUDGEMENT ( COURT’S DECISION )

The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 verdict, held that the restrictions upon entry of women between ages of 10-50 years into Sabrimala Shrine were unconstitutional and struck down Rule 3(b) of the KHPW Act. The court further passed directions to ensure the safety of women pilgrims entering the shrine.
The majority ruled that Ayyappa devotees are part of the Hindu religion, and without scriptural justification, the exclusion of women is not an essential religious practice. The Court found Rule 3(b) of the KHPW Rules unconstitutional as it contradicts the Act’s goal of reforming and allowing access to public Hindu Places for all.
Justice D.Y Chandrachud compared the exclusion of women based on menstrual status to untouchability, emphasizing that such practices violate constitutional morality and are prohibited by Article 17. Further he highlighted that women’s menstrual status is part of her privacy, and imposing restrictions based on this status undermines women’s dignity as protected by the constitution.

DISSENT OPINION

JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole dissenting voice. She argued that constitutional morality should not interfere with matters of faith and religious practices. According to her, religious practices and beliefs are matters of personal faith and should not be subject to judicial review unless they infringe public health, morality or order.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The Court held that according to Article 25 of the Constitution right to religion is irrespective of the gender discrimination. So, this exclusionary practice is violative of the right of women who wants to worship Lord Ayyappa.
It was also added by the Court that, there are certain evidences that shows that Lord Ayyappa is not a separate religious denomination under Article 26.
Another point clarified by Court was, the definition of the term “morality”. It was held that, morality here does not mean societal morality instead it was considering as constitutional morality.

CONCLUSION

The Sabrimala case highlights the complex interplay between constitutional rights and religious practices in India. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized that the right to freely practice religion, as enshrined in Article 25, applies equally to all individuals, irrespective of gender. The Court rejected the notion of exclusionary practices as essential to religion, underscoring practices as essential to religion, underscoring that traditions must be balanced with constitutional morality.

The ruling affirmed that the interpretation of religious practices should align with fundamental rights, reinforming gender equality within religious spaces. Ultimately, the case serves as pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse on women’s rights and religious freedoms in India, advocating for inclusivity and the reinterpretation of outdated customs in light of contemporary constitutional values.

REFERENCES