THE INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & Ors. v. STATE OF  KERALA & Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Dipak Mishra (CJI), R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu  Malhotra 

Date of Judgment: 28^th September 2018

Relevant Provisions/ Statutes:

• Article 14 – Right to Equality
• Article 15 (1), (2) – Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex • Article 17 – Abolition of untouchability
• Article 25 (1) – Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion
• Article 21 – Protection of life and liberty
• Article 26 – Freedom to manage religious affairs
• Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965

Brief Facts of the Case:

This case was one of the landmark cases in Indian History. Sabarimala Temple which is situated in Kerala is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa who is considered a perpetual celebate embodying  naishtika brahmacharya ideals deeply revered statewide. The Temple authorities traditionally  upheld a rigid custom barring entry of women aged 10-50 roughly corresponding with  menstruating age generally. Presence of reproductive-aged women would desecrate deity’s  celibate nature and badly disturb sanctity of that revered ancient temple precincts. This custom  wasn’t originally codified in temple traditions but gained strength through Rule 3(b) of Kerala  Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules 1965. Women within a certain age bracket were  explicitly barred from entering temple premises according to this stringent rule.

Indian Young Lawyers Association filed Public Interest Litigation before Supreme Court of  India in 2006 arguing restriction on women’s entry was patently arbitrary and discriminatory  violating fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 15 alongside Article 17 and Article 25. Travancore Devaswom Board managing temple affairs staunchly defended practice vehemently arguing it constituted essential religious practice protected under Article 26 granting every denomination autonomy. 

Such controversy sparked a vehement constitutional discussion on whether sacred traditions  can supersede basic human rights like gender parity and dignity in public worship spaces. A  five-judge Constitution Bench was subsequently referred the case for thoroughly examining  custom validity and its constitutional compatibility.

Issues:

1. Does excluding women aged 10–50 years from Sabarimala temple entry contravene certain constitutional provisions namely Articles 14 15 and 17 of India’s Constitution? 2. Whether custom of excluding women constitutes ‘essential religious practice’ protected  under Article 25 of Constitution is debatable somehow?
2. Does Sabarimala temple qualify as religious denomination under Article 26 of Constitution and have autonomy in managing its internal affairs?
3. Whether Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965 contravenes its parent Act and infringes basic rights.
4. Whether restriction on women’s entry violates their fundamental right to dignity and liberty remains questionable under Article 21 of Constitution.
5. Should constitutional morality supersede deeply ingrained religious customs and practices in a supposedly secular democracy like ours anyway somehow.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments: 

Petitioners challenged ban on entry of women aged 10-50 years into Sabarimala temple as  violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution. They contended practice was  discriminatory solely on basis of sex violating Articles 14 15 and 17 regarding equality  abolition of untouchability. They contended that exclusion was based merely on menstruation  a biological condition largely irrelevant to a person’s fundamental right to worship. Petitioners  further contended this practice couldn’t be considered essential religious practice under Article  25 lacking any scriptural or specific theological mandate. Restriction stemmed largely from  deeply ingrained patriarchal customs rather than outright religious necessity or dogmatic  fervor. Petitioners asserted that Sabarimala temple doesn’t constitute a separate religious

denomination under Article 26 of Constitution therefore cannot claim rights. They challenged  Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965 which  permitted exclusion being ultra vires parent Act and unconstitutional. They stressed that  constitutional morality should prevail over religious customs violating basic human rights and  dignity especially in a secular democratic society. 

Respondent’s Arguments: 

Respondents staunchly defended centuries-old custom as constitutionally protected religious  practice claiming restriction on menstruating women was rooted in Lord Ayyappa’s unique  celibate nature as Naishtika Brahmachari. Women of reproductive age entering temple grounds  would purportedly desecrate sanctity and spiritual rigor carefully cultivated within its hallowed  precincts. They argued vehemently that such practice constitutes an essential part of religious  ritual under Article 25 and remains shielded from governmental intrusion. Followers of temple  allegedly constituted distinct religious denomination thereby enjoying autonomy under Article  26(b) managing own affairs in religious matters freely. Respondents maintained Rule 3(b) of  1965 Rules was validly framed under Kerala Act and merely codified practice deeply rooted  in temple traditions already. They cautioned secular courts against evaluating essential parts of  religious faith arguing such interference would gravely violate freedom quite severely.  Restriction wasn’t about discrimination but rather a deeply revered religious discipline  observed out of deference for deity’s solemn vow of celibacy.

Judgment:

The HON’BLE Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority held that banning entry of women between  ages 10 and 50 into Sabarimala temple was patently unconstitutional. Court ruled practice  contravened Articles 14 15 17 and 25(1) essentially and it wasn’t deemed an indispensable facet  of religious observance somehow. It struck down Rule 3(b) of 1965 Rules as discriminatory  pretty swiftly amidst growing controversy surrounding such archaic legislation. Constitutional  morality and gender equality must prevail over outdated exclusionary religious customs  vigorously upheld by reactionary social groups everywhere. Justice Indu Malhotra strongly  dissented holding that matter involved deeply personal religious faith and courts shouldn’t  interfere with essential religious practices.

Ratio Decidendi:

Exclusion of women based on biological factors isn’t essential religious practice and violates  fundamental rights under Articles 14 15 17 and 25. Constitutional morality trumps religious  freedom quite often and customs steeped in discriminatory practices cannot override equality  guaranteed by Constitution.

Final Decision:

Supreme Court lifts ban on women of various ages entering Sabarimala temple declaring  exclusion custom unconstitutional effectively now. Court struck down 1965 Rules’ Rule 3(b)  and essentially held women possess an equal right somewhat freely to worship. Practice was  deemed violative of fundamental rights and temple authorities were directed open doors to  female devotees of all ages.