Sabarimala Case Explained: Supreme Court Verdict on Women’s Entry, Religious Practices, and Gender Equality

Case Name: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Others vs. The State of Kerala & Others

Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006

Petitioner: Indian Young Lawyers Association

Respondents:

• Travancore Devaswom Board
• State of Kerala
• Pandalam Royal Family
• Chief Thantri

Introduction

The Sabarimala case is one of the most debated legal battles in India, addressing the intersection of gender equality, religious practices, and constitutional rights. This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court in 2018 questioned centuries-old customs at the Sabarimala Temple and upheld the principles of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Facts of the Case

1. The Sabarimala Temple, located in Kerala’s Periyar Tiger Reserve, is revered as the abode of Lord Ayyappa, a deity believed to embody eternal celibacy.
2. Devotees traditionally observe a 41-day penance before visiting the temple, renouncing all worldly pleasures.
3. Women aged 10–50, considered to be in their menstruating years, were customarily prohibited from entering the temple to protect the deity’s celibate nature.
4. The practice was upheld by the Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore, as a valid custom in 1991.
5. In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court, challenging the prohibition under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution.

Key Issues

1. Does the restriction on women violate the Right to Equality and the Right against Discrimination under Articles 14 and 15?
2. Are Lord Ayyappa’s worshippers a distinct religious denomination under Article 26?
3. Can the exclusion of women be considered an “essential religious practice” protected under Article 25?
4. Does Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, contradict the parent Act prohibiting discriminatory practices?

Petitioners’ Arguments

1. The prohibition is not an essential religious practice under Hinduism.
2. The Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the temple and receives public funds, does not qualify as a religious denomination, as per the Shirur Mutt Case criteria.
3. Historical evidence suggests that women were not always excluded from the temple.
4. The ban discriminates against women based on their biological traits, violating Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution.
5. Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules, which allows exclusion based on custom, is unconstitutional.

Respondents’ Arguments

1. The restrictions are rooted in religion and are essential to the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa.
2. Lord Ayyappa is considered a living entity, and his Right to Privacy under Article 21 must be respected.
3. Physiological challenges, such as the 41-day penance and the difficult terrain, make the restriction reasonable.
4. Article 15(2), which prohibits discrimination, does not apply to religious institutions.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions and Laws

1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law.
2. Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
3. Article 17: Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
4. Article 25: Grants individuals the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
5. Article 26: Protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in religious matters.
6. Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965: Rule 3(b) allowed exclusion based on custom, while Section 4 of the parent Act prohibited discrimination.

Supreme Court Judgment

On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 4:1 in favor of lifting the ban on women entering the temple. Key observations included:

1. Majority Opinion:

   • The exclusion violates Articles 14, 15, and 25.
   • Justice Chandrachud emphasized that denying entry based on biological factors perpetuates societal discrimination and violates Article 17.
   • Justice Nariman clarified that Ayyappa devotees are Hindus, not a separate denomination, and the custom is unconstitutional.

2. Dissenting Opinion (Justice Indu Malhotra):

   • Courts should not interfere in religious matters.
   • The practice is protected under Articles 25 and 26.
   • Article 14 does not override the rights of religious denominations.

Analysis

The court made a crucial distinction between constitutional morality and religious morality. The majority view upheld the Constitution’s supremacy, ensuring that discriminatory practices rooted in tradition do not overshadow fundamental rights. However, the dissent highlighted the sensitive nature of judicial intervention in religious customs.

Conclusion

The Sabarimala verdict stands as a milestone in promoting gender equality, while also sparking significant debates on the role of judicial interference in religious practices. The judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional values must prevail over discriminatory traditions.

Case Comment

The case underscores the tension between tradition and modernity. While the verdict champions equality and inclusion, critics argue it disregards deeply held religious beliefs. Public opinion remains divided, reflecting the complex interplay of legal, cultural, and social dimensions.

My Perspective

As a law student and a follower of Hindu traditions, I dissent from the judgment for the following reasons:

1. The deity at Sabarimala, as a naishtika brahmachari, has a unique celibate nature deserving respect.
2. The restrictions are about exclusion, not discrimination.
3. Women are excluded from certain temples due to specific rituals, just as some temples restrict men.
4. Preservation of tradition is essential for cultural identity and religious freedom.

Religious sensibilities and constitutional values must coexist, but it is crucial to approach such matters with sensitivity to tradition and belief systems.