Published On: 2nd September, 2024
Authored By: Avani Mahajan
Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
CASE ANALYSIS
YOUNG INDIAN LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION VS STATE OF KERALA[1] (SABRIMALA CASE)
CITATION:2017 10SCC 689
Bench[2]: Chief Justice, Rohinton Fali Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra
Backdrop:
Sabarimala temple is located at Sabarimala in Pathanamthitta district of the South Indian state of Kerala. This religious site is of the Hindu pilgrimage and is located for the worship of Lord Ayyappa and their companions Ayyappan. This temple is run and governed by statutory corporation Travancore Devaswom Board come under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Insitution Act, 1950. Earlier women devotees, mostly Hindus who were within the age bracket of 10 to 50 years were restricted in their right to worship inthis temple.
This restriction on women is biblical with the plea that Lord Ayyappa is ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’ and it is essential for the purity of the deity Ayyappa. Therefore, according to the latest notification of Travancore Devaswom Board, even the women falling in the age group of 10 to 50 years are barred from entering into the temple. On the other hand, some gender right activist think that this exclusionary practice which is based upon the biological factor of the female gender amount to discrimination and many fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
The issue with Sabarimala Temple is one of the most popular headlines that depict the struggles of women against traditions. According to the custom and usage women in the menstrual age bracket of 10-50 years were barred from entering the Sabarimala Temple but this restriction stands as unconstitutional as it does not support the constitutional morality. Constitutional morality and Individual or social morality is not similar at all. Again, since India is a democracy, constitutional morality, and societal morality if they clash, the latter must give way to the former, so farmer should elicit later.
Fact of the Case:
In 1990 a writ was filed in the court of the growing Kerala high court for a ban on entry of women into the Sabarimala temple. Restriction of women of certain age entry inside the holy shrine of Lord Ayyappa was justified by the Kerala High Court. In 2006 a writ petition under the Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was filed by the registered association of Indian young lawyers to allow women between the ages of 10 to 50 years in All the Temples.
After two years in 2008 matter was referred to three-judge bench. In January 2016, Supreme Court of India poses questions to such restriction and said that this is not reasonable within constitutional morality. But surprisingly, in April 2016, the Kerala government replied that it is under an obligation to protect the right to practice the religion of Sabarimala devotees. Supreme Court of India referred the case to Constitutional bench in the year 2017.
Regarding the writ petition it was said that Rule 3 (b) the Kerala Hindu places of public worship (authorisation of entry) rules 1965 (hereinafter referred as 1965 rules) framed in exercise to section 4 of the Kerala Hindu places of public worship (authorisation of entry) act 1965(hereinafter referred as 1965 act) is unconstitutional because of violation of articles 14,15,25 of Indian Constitution.
Issues :
Whether the exclusionary practice based upon the biological factor which is per se exclusive to the female gender does amount to discrimination and violate the very grain of equal protection under articles 14, 15 and 17 and whether such exclusionary practice is not protected by ‘Morality’ as enshrined under articles 25 and 26 of the Indian constitution?
Whether exclusion of women and girl child from this practice is a necessary religious practice in letter and sprit of Art 25 of the Indian constitution.
Whether the Ayappa Temple is coming under the Religion denomination as per the 26th Article of the Indian Constitution? If yes then whether such a denomination which is managed and administered by a statutory body and financed under Article 290A of Indian constitution is permitted to use such derogatory words and vitiating constitutional morality/ principles falling under Articles 14,15(3).
RULE:
The case involves several constitutional provisions and principles: The case involves several constitutional provisions and principles:
Article 14: Right to Equality – denies people equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Article 15(1): Right to Equality – precludes discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Article 17: Untouchability – Bans all forms of untouchability.
Article 25(1): Freedom of Religion – Protects the right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to choose, to act upon and to promote ones religion.
Analysis:-
Confirmed, court stated that according to art 25 of constitution of India there is right of religion to every person, and sex or gender difference does not make any difference. If this customary practice is retorted, it infringes on the rights of a women to be able to visit a public temple specifically to practice Hinduism and her devotion towards lord Ayyappa.
The court also pointed out that various submissions which are displayed in the court reveal that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form another independent religious group under art 26. Of course, it will be necessary that for a separate religious denomination there will be new methodology proposed for a religion. But people’s various rituals demonstrate that it is typical in the Hindu faith. If their practices are from time immemorial then how can it be stated that it is distinct religion merely by following such practices.
Court made its opinion that, As there was no scriptural or textual support court refused to pay with the exclusionary practice as a component of religion. With the decisions taken in Sabarimala temple the women will not bring any change or transformation in the core aspects of Hindu religion.
CONCLUSION:
As per the above stated judgement of Hon’able Supreme Court of India, the social restrictions prescribed by placing ban on the women of the age group of 10 to 50 years from entering the attested Sreedharma Ayyappa Temple have thrown and declared the traditions constitutional. The Court observed that this was un-constitutional to the articles of the constitution of India of Article 14 (Equality), Article 15 (Non-discrimination), Article 17 (Untouchability is a offense), and Article 25 (Equality of all religions). In its judgment, the mismatch of female sex removed from the product because of their physiological characteristics was prohibited by the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Secondly, the Court pointed out that the practice was not coming within the realm of the recognized religious freedom therefore it cannot qualify for the protection under Article 26 of Constitution and which grants to religious denominations the authority to administer their matters religious. The Court further opined that women also equally have the liberty to exercise their religious freedom and doing so gave a sense of dignity, The court in this way was able to provide justice and end discriminating on the basis of gender and religion to ensure progressive change for women and minorities in India.
Reference(s):
[1] https://blog.ipleaders.in/indian-young-lawyers-association-ors-vs-state-kerala-ors-2018/
