Case Summary: Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. The State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 2019 SC 1661

• Case Title: Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. The State of Kerala and Ors. 
• COURT: Supreme Court of India
• Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006, AIR 2019 SC 1661
• BENCH: Five-Judge Constitution Bench.

1. Dipak Misra, CJI (Chief Justice of India)
2. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
3. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
4. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
5. Justice Indu Malhotra

RELEVANT STATUTES AND KEY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 14: Right to Equality
• Article 15(1): Prohibition of discrimination
• Article 15(3): Special provisions for women
• Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability
• Article 25(1), 25(2)(b): Freedom of religion & state power to regulate religious practices
• Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs

Statutory Provisions:

• Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, Rule 3(b)
• Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950
• Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

BRIEF  FACTS

The Sabarimala Temple barred women aged 10–50 from entry, citing the celibate nature (Naishtika Brahmachari) of Lord Ayyappa. Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a PIL in 2006 under Article 32, challenging this as discriminatory. Petitioners argued that entry cannot be restricted based on gender at a public temple, violating rights to equality, religious freedom, and dignity. The Devaswom Board defended it as an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 and Article 26, claiming a denominational character. In 2017, the challenge was referred to a Constitution Bench.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Does the ban on women violate Articles 14, 15, and 17?
2. Does the practice count as an ‘essential religious practice’ under Article 25(1) and Article 26?
3. Are devotees of Lord Ayyappa a separate religious denomination under Article 26?
4. Is Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules constitutionally valid?
5. Does constitutional morality override religious and public morality?
6. Does Article 25(1) prevail over temple custom?
   

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Petitioners (Indian Young Lawyers Association)

1. Gender Discrimination: Ban creates arbitrary classification, violating equality (Art. 14, 15). 
2. Article 17: Treats menstruating women as “impure,” amounting to a form of untouchability. 
3. Non-Essential Practice: No scriptural basis; custom, not core religion. 
4. Public Temple: Managed by statutory board, no right to gender-based exclusion (Section 3, 1965 Act). 
5. No Denomination: Devotees lack distinct identity required under Article 26. 
6. Constitutional Morality: Prevails over exclusionary customs. 
7. State Power of Reform: Article 25(2)(b) allows state to curb gendered practices. 

Respondents (State of Kerala, Devaswom Board, Temple Authorities)

1. Essential Religious Practice: Exclusion integral to worship, linked to deity’s celibacy. 
2. Article 25 & 26 Protection: Own mode of worship, falls within protected freedom. 
3. Religious Denomination: Unique rituals, distinct faith, fulfill denomination status. 
4. Article 26 Supersedes: Not subject to Article 14, 15, only public order/morality. 
5. Limited Restriction: Not total ban, only specific age group; voluntary practice. 
6. Faith Cannot Be Judged: Antiquity, acceptance by women themselves. 
7. Unique Character: Distinct from other Hindu temples. 

JUDGMENT

Majority (CJ Misra, Khanwilkar, Nariman, Chandrachud):

• Practice and Rule 3(b) struck down as unconstitutional, violating gender equality, dignity, and religious freedom.
• Devaswom Board is ‘State’ (Art. 12), bound by fundamental rights. 
• Right to worship under Article 25 for “all persons,” including women; cannot be restricted by custom. 
• Rule 3(b) ultra vires the 1965 Act/Constitution—cannot discriminate on sex
• Sabarimala devotees not a separate denomination, part of broader Hindu religion. 
• Exclusion not essential; lacks scriptural authority or historical consistency. 
• Notions of purity, custom cannot trump constitutional equality and morality.
  

DISSENT (JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA):

• Exclusion is an essential religious practice; courts must defer unless practice is oppressive. 
• Religious communities define their own essentials; rationality, constitutional morality not relevant to faith. 
• Sabarimala worshippers form a denomination; restriction not patriarchal but stems from deity’s unique nature. 
• Rule 3(b) valid as statutory recognition of custom; no evidence of discrimination felt by women themselves.
  

RATIO DECIDENDI

• Gender Exclusion Unconstitutional: No religious practice can exclude women based on sex or biological features; violates Articles 14, 15, 17. 
• Essential Practice Test: Only practices central to religion and supported by scripture are protected; custom failing this test not protected. 
• Constitutional Morality Prevails: Constitutional values (equality, dignity) override religious morality in conflict
• Article 26 Subordinate: Denomination autonomy subject to Part III rights, especially 14, 15. 
• Biological Features Not Grounds: Menstruation not impurity; exclusion is untouchability (Art. 17). 
• Right to Worship Universally Protected: Women’s right to worship cannot be curtailed by custom.

OBITER DICTA

• Patriarchy in Religion: Chandrachud—patriarchal religious exclusion cannot be permitted under Constitution. 
• Inclusion: Majority—Constitution demands inclusion of all identities, exclusion of women is antithetical. 
• State’s Role: State’s rules backing discrimination are unconstitutional. 
• Progressive Constitutionalism: Rights must keep pace with society; discrimination cannot continue under rubric of religion. 
• Faith and Science: Misra—faith cannot override scientific understanding of menstruation.

FINAL DECISION 

• Rule 3(b), 1965 Rules struck down as unconstitutional; exclusion of women 10–50 barred. 
• Women of all ages granted right of entry as a fundamental aspect of worship under Article 25(1). 
• Denomination argument rejected; devotees part of larger Hindu fold. 
• Protest followed judgment; massive review petitions led to referral to larger bench (pending as of late 2025).