Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. [Sabarimala Temple Case]

The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. is a landmark judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of India on 28th September 2018. It dealt with the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, a religious place dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.

Women between the ages of 10 and 50 years were denied entry into the temple based on a custom linked to the deity’s nature as a ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’. This exclusion was backed by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.

The matter raised important questions about constitutional morality, religious freedom, equality, and gender discrimination.

Facts of Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors.

In Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors., a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed. The petitioners challenged the prohibition on women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple.

The respondents included the State of Kerala, Travancore Devaswom Board, Chief Thanthri of the Temple, and the District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta.

The petitioners argued that Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 was unconstitutional. They said it violated Articles 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 17 (abolition of untouchability), and Article 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution.

The case was initially heard by a three-judge bench and was later referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

Issues before the Court in Sabarimala Temple Case

The Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. considered the following key issues:

• Whether the exclusion of women based on biological factors amounts to discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 17.
• Whether the practice is an essential religious practice protected under Article 25.
• Whether the Sabarimala Temple constitutes a religious denomination under Article 26.
• Whether Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.
• Whether the exclusion violates the principles of constitutional morality.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners raised strong constitutional arguments:

• No Religious Denomination: They argued that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form a separate religious denomination. Worship at Sabarimala is like worship in any other Hindu temple.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: Denying entry to women violates Articles 14 and 15. Hinduism as a religion does not discriminate against women.
• Entry Cannot Be Completely Barred: They stated that regulation of temple entry is allowed, but absolute prohibition based on gender is unconstitutional.
• Essential Practice Doctrine: Only practices essential to religion are protected under Article 25. The exclusion of women is not essential to Hinduism or worship at Sabarimala.
• Constitutional Morality: Morality in the Constitution must mean constitutional morality and not what a particular group perceives.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents justified the exclusion:

• Essential Spiritual Discipline: The prohibition is rooted in the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa. The 41-day Vrutham (penance) required for pilgrimage cannot be observed by menstruating women.
• Custom and Usage: They argued that the exclusion is an age-old custom protected under religious freedom.
• Religious Denomination: Devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a religious denomination under Article 26, and therefore have the right to manage their religious affairs.
• Not a Social Evil: The practice is not discriminatory or untouchability under Article 17 but is based on the deity’s unique character.
  

Observations by the Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors.

In Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors., the majority of the Court made important observations:

• Devotees Not a Separate Denomination: The Court found that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form a separate religious denomination. They are part of the Hindu religion at large.
• Fundamental Rights Enforceable Against Devaswom Board: The Travancore Devaswom Board managing the temple is a ‘State’ under Article 12. Therefore, it is subject to fundamental rights.
• All Persons under Article 25: The right to worship under Article 25 is available to “all persons,” including women. Excluding women based on biological factors is unconstitutional.
• Exclusion Not an Essential Religious Practice: The Court held that the practice of excluding women is not an essential practice of Hindu religion. It has no textual or scriptural basis.
• Rule 3(b) Ultra Vires: Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules was declared ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965. It discriminated solely on the basis of sex.
• Constitutional Morality Prevails: The Court said constitutional morality, not public morality, must guide the interpretation of fundamental rights.

Dissent by Justice Indu Malhotra in Sabarimala Temple Case

Justice Indu Malhotra gave a dissenting opinion in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors.:

• Religious Freedom is Paramount: She held that religious practices, even if illogical or irrational, are protected under Articles 25 and 26.
• Devotees Form a Religious Denomination: She opined that devotees of Lord Ayyappa satisfy the requirements of a religious denomination.
• Limited Restriction: The restriction on women’s entry was limited and not a violation of Article 17 (abolition of untouchability).
• Judicial Deference: Courts should not intervene in religious practices unless they are oppressive or pernicious.
• Rule 3(b) Valid: She held that Rule 3(b) was not ultra vires as it was a statutory recognition of an existing custom.

Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. Judgement

The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors., ruled:

• Women of all ages have the right to enter and worship at the Sabarimala Temple.
• The custom of excluding women aged 10-50 years was unconstitutional.
• Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules was ultra vires and struck down.
• Constitutional morality must prevail over traditional customs.

The Court reaffirmed that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination. Women’s right to worship must be protected equally as men’s.

Significance of the Judgement

The decision in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. is a landmark in Indian constitutional history. It lays down that:

• Customs and practices that are inconsistent with fundamental rights must yield to constitutional morality.
• Religious practices are subject to constitutional scrutiny.
• Equality and dignity of women cannot be compromised in the name of religious freedom.
• Public temples cannot impose discriminatory practices against any section or class of Hindus.

The judgement set a strong precedent for future cases concerning gender justice and religious practices.

Conclusion

The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. is a turning point in ensuring equality in religious practices. It reaffirmed that fundamental rights are supreme and cannot be sacrificed at the altar of customs that perpetuate discrimination.

By allowing women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala Temple, the Court upheld the vision of a modern, secular and inclusive Constitution. The judgement also serves as a reminder that customs, even when ancient, must be tested against the principles of equality, dignity, and freedom.

In conclusion, Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors. reasserts the transformative power of the Constitution in India’s journey towards gender justice and religious equality.

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal

Researcher: Megha Singal, Shristy Choudhary and Tanaya Das