Case Summary: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v The State of Kerala & Ors

1) Case Title.

Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v The State of Kerala & Ors.

2) Citation.

Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v State of Kerala & Ors, (2019) 11 SCC 1.

3) Court.

Supreme Court of India.

4) Bench.

1. Hon’ble Chief Justice Dipak Misra (Now, Ex-Chief Justice.)
2. Hon’ble Justice AM Khanwilkar
3. Hon’ble Justice RF Nariman
4. Hon’ble Justice DY Chandrachud
5. Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra

5) Date of Judgment.

28 September 2018.

6) Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions.

• Constitution of India, articles 14, 15, 17, 21, 25, 26.
• Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965, section 4.
• Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965, rule 3(b).

7) Brief Facts.

The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala is a major Hindu pilgrimage site dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, believed to be a celibate deity. For years, women aged 10 to 50- roughly the age range when women menstruate- were not allowed to enter the temple. This rule, backed by Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, was said to protect the deity’s celibate nature and respect the strict 41-day penance devotees undertake. In 1991, the Kerala High Court in S Mahendran v The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board supported this tradition, saying it didn’t break any constitutional rules.

In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association and others filed a case in the Supreme Court, arguing that banning women was unfair and against the Constitution. They said it violated their rights to equality, non-discrimination, freedom from untouchability, dignity, and the right to practice religion. In 2017, the case went to a five-judge panel to decide if the ban was legal under the Constitution. The temple’s management (Travancore Devaswom Board) and the Kerala government defended the ban, saying it was a key part of the temple’s religious tradition and that the temple had the right to set its own rules as a distinct religious group.

8) Issues Involved.

1. Does the exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from Sabarimala Temple, based on biological factors, constitute discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution?
2. Is the exclusionary practice an essential religious practice protected under Article 25?
3. Do devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26?
4. Is Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965 ultra vires the 1965 Act or violative of Part III of the Constitution?
5. Does the exclusion violate the principles of constitutional morality?

9) Arguments.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The exclusion of women based on menstruation is discriminatory and violates Article 14 (equality before the law), as it lacks a rational nexus with the objective of preserving the deity’s celibacy. The classification is arbitrary and fails the test of reasonable classification, as held in Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.
• The practice contravenes Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination based on sex, and Article 15(2)(b), as the temple is a public place of worship.
• The exclusion stigmatizes women, treating them as impure, and amounts to a form of untouchability under Article 17, which extends to social practices like menstrual discrimination.
• The right to worship under Article 25 is available to all persons, and excluding women based on physiological factors infringes their freedom of religion.
• The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26, as they lack distinct practices or organization, per SP Mittal v Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 51.
• Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires the 1965 Act and violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.
• The practice undermines constitutional morality, which prioritizes equality and dignity, as emphasized in KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The restriction is a legitimate religious practice rooted in the temple’s tradition and the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa, protected under Article 25 and Article 26.
• The Sabarimala devotees form a distinct religious denomination with unique practices, entitled to manage their religious affairs under Article 26.
• Rule 3(b) is intra vires the 1965 Act, as it codifies a customary practice and does not completely bar women but restricts a specific age group for a specific reason.
• The exclusion does not violate Article 17, as untouchability relates to caste-based discrimination, not gender-based customs.
• The practice does not infringe constitutional morality, as it aligns with the temple’s religious ethos and does not oppress women but respects the deity’s character.

10) Judgment.

In a 4:1 majority decision, the Supreme Court struck down the prohibition on women aged 10 to 50 entering Sabarimala Temple, declaring it unconstitutional. The majority opinions, authored by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Nariman, Khanwilkar, and Chandrachud, held:

• The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26, as they lack the distinct characteristics required under precedents like SP Mittal v Union of India. They are part of the broader Hindu religion.
• The exclusion of women based on menstruation is discriminatory and violates Article 14, as it lacks a rational basis and perpetuates gender-based inequality.
• The practice infringes Article 15(1) by discriminating solely on the ground of sex and Article 15(2) by restricting access to a public place of worship.
• Justice Chandrachud observed that the exclusion amounts to a form of untouchability under Article 17, as it stigmatizes women based on notions of purity and pollution, incompatible with constitutional morality.
• The practice is not an essential religious practice under Article 25, as it lacks textual or scriptural basis in Hinduism and is not integral to the temple’s functioning.
• Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules was declared ultra vires the 1965 Act and violative of Part III of the Constitution, as it enforces an unconstitutional custom.
• The right to worship under Article 25 extends to all persons, including women, and cannot be curtailed based on biological factors.
  Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing:
• The devotees of Lord Ayyappa form a religious denomination, and their practices are protected under Article 26.
• The restriction is a limited and reasonable custom, not violative of Article 17, as it does not equate to untouchability.
• Courts should exercise judicial restraint in interfering with religious practices unless they are oppressive or pernicious.
• Rule 3(b) is valid as a statutory recognition of the temple’s custom.
  The majority emphasized constitutional morality, prioritizing equality, dignity, and non-discrimination over traditional practices lacking constitutional legitimacy.

11) Ratio Decidendi.

The exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from Sabarimala Temple based on menstruation is unconstitutional, as it violates Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution. The practice is not an essential religious practice under Article 25, and the devotees do not form a separate religious denomination under Article 26. Constitutional morality prevails over customs that discriminate based on sex or perpetuate stigma.

12) Obiter Dicta.

• Justice Chandrachud remarked that treating menstruation as polluting undermines women’s dignity and privacy, protected under Article 21.
• The Court noted that religious practices must align with constitutional values, and courts have a duty to strike down customs that violate fundamental rights.
• The judgment highlighted the broader impact on gender justice, encouraging challenges to similar discriminatory practices in other religious institutions.

13) Final Decision.

The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965 and lifted the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering Sabarimala Temple, upholding their fundamental rights to equality and worship. The Travancore Devaswom Board and the State of Kerala were directed to ensure compliance.

14) Impact and Significance.

The Sabarimala judgment is a landmark in Indian constitutional law, reinforcing the supremacy of constitutional morality over discriminatory religious practices. It expanded the interpretation of Article 17 to include social practices like menstrual discrimination, strengthening protections against gender-based exclusion. The decision sparked widespread debate, with significant resistance from traditionalists and protests in Kerala, highlighting tensions between religious customs and constitutional rights. It also inspired legal challenges against similar restrictions in other religious sites, such as Haji Ali Dargah and Shani Shingnapur, advancing gender justice. However, the judgment’s implementation faced challenges due to social opposition, underscoring the gap between legal rulings and societal acceptance. In 2019, review petitions led to a referral to a larger nine-judge bench to address broader questions on religious freedom, but the core ruling remains a pivotal step toward equality.

15) References.

• Constitution of India 1950.
• Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v State of Kerala & Ors, (2019) 11 SCC 1.
• SP Mittal v Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51.
• Shayara Bano v Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
• KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
• Vineet Mishra, ‘Brief Analysis of Sabarimala Temple Case’ (Legal Service India, 2023) http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4872-brief-analysis-of-sabarimala-temple-case-indian-young-lawyers-association-v-s-kerala.html accessed 27 July 2025.
• ‘Sabarimala Temple Entry’ (Supreme Court Observer, 24 June 2022) https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/sabrimala-temple-entry-case accessed 27 July 2025.