Sabarimala Temple Verdict: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – Gender Equality in Religious Rights

 

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)

 

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) 11 S.C.C. 1 (India)

Judgement delivered by- bench consisting of Dipak Misra (CJI), A.M. Khanwilkar, Rohinton Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra.

Landmark case on gender equality and constitutional morality in matters of religious freedom.

Author- Supriya Chandra, B.A.LLB(Hons), S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

ABSTRACT

The judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)  is a constitutional milestone that questioned the traditional religious practice at the Sabarimala Temple, which barred entry of women of menstruating age (10–50 years). This case presented a direct clash between religious freedom under Article 25 and the right to equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 ruling, declared the practice of prohibiting women from entering Sabarimala temple unconstitutional. This analysis delves into the key aspects of the judgment including the issues raised, the arguments of both parties, and the judicial reasoning, while reflecting upon its broader legal and social implications.

 

 

PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

Case title	Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
Case Number	Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006
Jurisdiction	Supreme Court of India
Petitioner	Indian Young Lawyers Association and others
Respondent	State of Kerala
Case filed On	2006
Date of Judgement	28 September 2018
Bench	Dipak Misra (CJI), A.M. Khanwilkar, Rohinton Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra
Majority	Dipak Misra (CJI), A.M. Khanwilkar, Rohinton Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud,
Dissent	Indu Malhotra
Legal Provisions Involved	Article 14, 15(1), 17, 25(1), 26(b) of the Constitution of India
Case Summary Prepared by	Supriya Chandra

 

 

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The Sabarimala temple in Kerala, a prominent Hindu pilgrimage site dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, historically barred the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years—essentially, those who menstruate. This trdition of keeping women away from the Sabrimala temple was rooted in the belief that Lord Ayyappa, worshipped there is an eternal celibate and their presence was seen as conflicting with his spiritual discipline. The Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged this practice in a public interest litigation, arguing that it violated the constitutional rights of women.

 

The case gained national attention as it presented a contentious debate over whether religious customs can override fundamental rights. While the Kerala High Court had earlier supported the ban, stating it was a valid religious custom that was essential to the practice of Lord Ayyappa faith the petitioners challenged this decision and sought the intervention of Supreme Court. They argued that faith should not come at the cost of equality and everyone should have the same right to worship regardless of gender.

 

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

1. Whether the practice of excluding women from entering the Sabarimala temple constitutes an essential religious practice under Article 25.

 

2. Whether the exclusionary practice violates Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 17 (abolition of untouchability).

 

3. Whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, which permits the exclusion of certain individuals from temple entry based on custom , is constitutionally valid.

4. Whether the Sabarimala Temple has denominational characters under Article 26 to manage its religious affairs.

 

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS

The petitioners contended that the exclusion of women based on biological factors such as menstruation was deeply discriminatory and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

First, they argued that such exclusion was not an essential part of Hindu religion or the specific practice of worship at Sabarimala. They asserted that the practice was a social custom rather than a religious mandate and thus could not be protected under Article 25(1).

 

Second, the petitioners argued that the ban constituted discrimination based on gender, thus infringing upon the principle enshrined in Article 14. Since there was no intelligible differentia nor rational nexus for the exclusion, it failed the test of reasonable classification.

 

Third, they submitted that the practice also contravened Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, and Article 15(2), which bars such discrimination in access to public spaces.

 

Lastly, they argued that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules empowered the ban in an arbitrary and unconstitutional manner and needed to be struck down.

 

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents, including the Travancore Devaswom Board, contended that the ban was constitutionally valid under the protection of religious freedom.

 

Firstly, they claimed that the Sabarimala temple followed unique religious practices that constituted an essential part of their faith. According to them Lord Ayyappa is a Naishtika Brahmachari and allowing of women of menstruating age into the temple could disrupt the spiritual atmosphere.

 

Secondly, the respondents argued that the temple enjoyed the protection of Article 26(b), which allowed religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. They claimed the temple qualified as a denominational temple under the Constitution.

 

Thirdly, it was submitted that the prohibition was not a case of discrimination but a religious custom grounded in belief and centuries-old tradition, not aimed at subjugating women but maintaining religious order.

 

Lastly, they defended Rule 3(b) as a legitimate regulatory tool to preserve the essential religious practices of the temple.

 

LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED

1.     Article 14: Right to equality before the law. It ensures that everyone is treated fairly and without discrimination by the state.

 

2.      Article 15(1) & (2): Article 15(1) prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, while Article 15(2) forbids similar discrimination in access to public places and services.

 

3.      Article 17: It is a fundamental provision that abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice in any form. Any act of untouchability is regarded as a punishable offence.

 

4.      Article 25(1):It guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and spread their religion. However, the right is not unlimited, it must respect public order, morality and health. This ensures that religious practices do not disrupt societal harmony or infringe upon fundamental rights.

 

5.      Article 26(b): It grants religious groups the right to manage their own affairs in religious matters. This provision ensures that religious communities can govern their traditions,beliefs and rituals without external control fostering religious freedom while maintaining societal harmony.  However, if any practice or action violates the public order then the state has the authority to intervene.

 

The Essential Religious Practices Doctrine was pivotal in determining whether the exclusion of women qualified for constitutional protection.

 

The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, particularly Rule 3(b), which permitted exclusion of women from certain temples, was scrutinized for violating constitutional mandates.

 

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, ruled in favour of the petitioners and held the ban on entry of women unconstitutional.

 

Chief Justice Dipak Misra, speaking on behalfof himself and Justice Khanwilkar stated that the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice. Instead of allowing tradition to dictate constitutional principles, he emphasized that constitutional morality must take precedence over societal customs, ensuring that fundamental rights remain at the heart of the legal system. His judgment reinforced the idea that equality and justice must prevail.

 

Justice Nariman agreed, emphasizing that the temple failed to qualify as a religious denomination and that the exclusion infringed upon essential constitutional rights.

 

Justice Chandrachud, in a powerful concurring opinion, termed the exclusion as a form of untouchability, expanding the scope of Article 17 to include gender-based social exclusion.

 

Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, warning against judicial interference in religious practices and asserting that the worshippers of Lord Ayyappa formed a distinct denomination whose rights under Article 26 should be preserved.

The Court declared Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules unconstitutional for enabling such exclusion.

 

IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE

1. Advancement of Gender Justice and Equality:

 

The judgment is a cornerstone in the struggle for gender equality in religious spaces. It affirmed that women, irrespective of their biological attributes, have an equal right to worship, thereby breaking barriers constructed by centuries of exclusionary practices.

 

2. Redefining Essential Religious Practices:

 

By refusing to accept the exclusion as an essential religious practice, the Court reinforced that customs not integral to a religion cannot be protected under Article 25. This narrowed the scope of religious protection and aligned religious practices with constitutional values.

 

3. Expanding the Scope of Article 17:

 

Justice Chandrachud’s observation that menstrual-based exclusion amounts to untouchability introduced a progressive and intersectional lens to constitutional interpretation. Although not adopted by the majority, it paved the way for future expansion of anti-discrimination jurisprudence.

 

4. Emphasis on Constitutional Morality:

 

The majority emphasized that constitutional morality must guide the interpretation of religious freedom. This doctrine, which places constitutional values above popular morality or majoritarian beliefs, strengthens rights-based jurisprudence in India.

 

5. Strengthening Judicial Role in Reform:

 

The case affirmed the judiciary’s role as a protector of fundamental rights, especially in areas where legislative or executive inertia allows regressive traditions to persist. It also reaffirmed the principle that no religious practice can claim immunity if it violates the Constitution.

 

6. Social and Political Ramifications:

 

The decision sparked intense protests and political polarization in Kerala and elsewhere. While celebrated by women’s rights groups and progressives, it was met with resistance from traditionalists. This reveals that legal victories must be followed by societal dialogue to ensure lasting reform.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) marked a pivotal moment in constitutional jurisprudence, strengthening the principles of gender equality, religious freedom, and constitutional morality. The Court struck down the prohibition on women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple, deeming it discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that religious customs cannot override fundamental rights, particularly when they perpetuate exclusion based on gender.

 

A key takeaway from the ruling was the Court’s stance on constitutional morality, stating that individual rights must prevail over social traditions that contradict the essence of equality. The decision underscored that the temple’s practice was not an essential religious tenet but rather a social custom that failed to withstand constitutional scrutiny. The dissenting opinion, however, highlighted concerns about judicial intervention in religious practices, reflecting the ongoing debate between faith and fundamental rights.

 

Importantly, the judgment is not merely about temple entry, it is a broader assertion that faith must not be a ground for gendered exclusion. It challenges centuries of religious orthodoxy that placed women at the margins of religious participation and denied them agency in public religious life.

Ultimately, the verdict reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in disassembling discriminatory practices while balancing religious autonomy. It set a precedent for future cases concerning gender-based exclusion in religious spaces, reinforcing the idea that tradition cannot justify discrimination. By opening Sabarimala’s doors to women, the Supreme Court also opened the way for a more fair and inclusive society.

 

Sabarimala Temple Verdict: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – Gender Equality in Religious Rights

In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Supreme Court declared the Sabarimala temple's ban on women as unconstitutional, upholding gender equality and constitutional morality over religious practices. A landmark judgment on Article 14, 15, 17, and 25.

• Sabarimala temple verdict
• Indian Young Lawyers Association case
• Gender equality and religion
• Article 14 15 17 25 Constitution
• Essential religious practices doctrine

• Women entry in temples
• Right to worship in India
• Religious freedom vs constitutional morality
• Rule 3(b) 1965 Kerala Rules
• Justice Chandrachud untouchability judgment