INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. V. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS. (2018)

The Sabarimala Case is a landmark legal and societal debate surrounding centuries-old traditions. Historically, women of reproductive age were prohibited from entering the Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, citing the need to preserve the deity’s sanctity and uphold temple customs. This practice became the subject of legal scrutiny when the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition in 2006, challenging the ban as a violation of women’s Right to Equality and Religious Freedom guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in a 4:1 majority judgment, ruled that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala was unconstitutional. This decision triggered protests and implementation challenges, leading to a referral for review in 2019, which remains pending in the Court.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Sabarimala is a prominent temple in Kerala, India, dedicated to the celibate deity Lord Ayyappa. Traditionally, women aged 10 to 50 years were not allowed entry into the temple to avoid breaching the deity’s celibacy.

In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld this ban, reinforcing the temple’s autonomy over its customs. However, in 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the repeal of the ban. The petition argued that the restriction violated constitutional guarantees of gender equality, freedom of religion, and freedom to worship under the Indian Constitution.

ISSUES

1. Constitutional Point:

   • Does the exclusion of women violate fundamental rights such as Equality (Article 14), Non-Discrimination (Article 15), and Freedom of Religion (Article 25)?

2. Religious Practices vs. Constitutional Morality:

   • Should the exclusion of women be considered a religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution?

3. Women’s Rights:

   • Does the ban amount to gender discrimination, contravening constitutional principles of equality and justice?

4. Temple Autonomy:

   • Can the temple, as a religious institution, self-govern its internal matters and decide who should be allowed entry?

JURISDICTION

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction to issue writs, orders, or directions to address violations of fundamental rights. This provision formed the basis for the Indian Young Lawyers Association’s petition.

APPELLANT SIDE (PETITIONERS): INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

1. Violation of Constitutional Rights:

   • The petitioners argued that the ban breached constitutional rights to Equality (Article 14) and Freedom of Religion (Article 25).

2. Discriminatory Practices:

   • They claimed that prohibiting menstruating women was a discriminatory measure, rooted in biological differences.

3. Gender Justice:

   • The practice was portrayed as sexist and contrary to constitutional morality, as it perpetuated inequality based on gender.

4. Right to Worship:

   • The petitioners contended that Article 25, guaranteeing the freedom of worship, cannot be restricted by religious customs that infringe upon fundamental rights.

RESPONDENT SIDE (TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD AND TEMPLE AUTHORITIES)

1. Religious Tradition:

   • The respondents maintained that the ban was an integral part of the centuries-old religious traditions of the Sabarimala temple, centered on the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa.

2. Core Religious Practice:

   • They argued that the restriction was a core religious practice, protected under Article 26, which allows religious institutions to manage their affairs.

3. Autonomy of Religious Affairs:

   • The respondents claimed that courts should not interfere in religious matters, as the Constitution safeguards religious autonomy.

4. Non-Discrimination:

   • They asserted that the ban was not gender discrimination but an acknowledgment of the temple’s unique deity and worship style.

JUDGMENT

On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled 4:1 that the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional.

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

   • The Court declared that the practice violated women’s fundamental rights to Equality (Article 14) and Non-Discrimination (Article 15).

2. Non-Essential Religious Practice:

   • It was determined that the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice under Article 25, making it subject to constitutional scrutiny.

3. Supremacy of Constitutional Morality:

   • The judgment emphasized that religious practices, even if traditional, must align with the progressive and egalitarian values enshrined in the Constitution.

4. Dissenting Opinion:

   • Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, asserting that religious customs should be left to the community, and judicial intervention is unwarranted unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

PRINCIPLES / GUIDELINES

1. Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination:

   • The Supreme Court reaffirmed that gender discrimination contradicts Articles 14 and 15, prohibiting unjust practices based on biological differences.

2. Freedom of Religion and Worship:

   • Article 25 guarantees the right to worship for all individuals, and any prohibition must adhere to constitutional limits.

3. Constitutional Morality:

   • Religious practices must uphold constitutional values, prioritizing inclusivity and progressiveness over rigid traditions.

4. Essential Religious Practices:

   • The exclusion of women did not qualify as an essential religious practice under Article 25, as it failed the test of necessity for the faith’s sustenance.

CONCLUSION

The 2018 Sabarimala judgment marked a turning point in the interpretation of constitutional rights and their application to religious practices. While it upheld gender equality and constitutional morality, the ruling also sparked widespread protests and debates, highlighting the tension between religious traditions and modern legal principles.

As the matter awaits further review, the Sabarimala case continues to be a critical reference for discussions on balancing individual rights, religious freedom, and constitutional values in India.