INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. (2019) 11 SCC 1:

DATE: 28/09/2018

BENCH: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice A.M. Khanw

FACTS:

The case revolved around the Sabarimala temple, a revered Hindu shrine in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappan. The core issue concerned the traditional prohibition on the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50, which corresponded to menstruating women. This restriction was based on the belief that the presence of women of menstruating age would be inconsistent with the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappan, thereby violating the sanctity and religious traditions of the temple. 

This practice of exclusion was legally supported by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, framed under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act (KHPW Act). The rule stated that women could be denied entry into places of public worship if such exclusion was based on long-standing custom and usage. The legitimacy of this restriction had previously been upheld by the Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran vs. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram and Others (AIR 1993 Ker. 42), where the court ruled that the prohibition did not violate the fundamental rights of women under the Indian Constitution. Given the constitutional significance of the matter, the case was ultimately placed before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court for a final determination.

ISSUES:

The case addressed whether excluding women based on biological factors violated Articles 14, 15, and 17 without protection under Articles 25 and 26. It examined if this practice was an "essential religious practice" and if a religious institution could claim autonomy over it. The court also considered whether the Ayyappa Temple had a denominational status and if a state-funded religious body could override constitutional morality. Lastly, it questioned the validity of Rule 3(b) of the KHPW Rules, 1965, and its compliance with the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING: 

The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, ruled that the exclusion of women aged 10-50 from the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The Court held that this practice violated Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution, as it amounted to gender-based discrimination and denied women their fundamental right to worship. It rejected the claim that the exclusion was an "essential religious practice" and held that religious freedom cannot override constitutional morality. The Court also struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, as ultra vires, affirming that customs that discriminate against women have no place under the constitutional framework. However, Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing that matters of religious practices should be left to the faith's followers and not subject to judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court's reasoning was primarily based on the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and constitutional morality. The majority held that the exclusion of women aged 10-50 from the Sabarimala temple was a clear violation of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex). The Court emphasized that any custom or tradition that undermines fundamental rights must be tested against constitutional principles. It further ruled that the exclusionary practice amounted to "untouchability" under Article 17, as it imposed social disability based on a physiological trait. The justices rejected the argument that the restriction was an "essential religious practice" under Article 25, stating that religious freedom cannot be absolute and must conform to constitutional morality, which upholds dignity and non-discrimination.

The Court also examined whether the Ayyappa temple had a denominational status under Article 26, which would grant it autonomy in religious affairs. It concluded that the temple did not meet the criteria of a religious denomination and was, therefore, subject to state regulation. Additionally, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, which legitimized the exclusion, was struck down as unconstitutional for violating Part III of the Constitution. The Court underscored that practices rooted in patriarchy and social exclusion cannot be sustained under the constitutional mandate of equality and justice. However, the lone dissenting judge, Justice Indu Malhotra, opined that courts should not interfere in religious practices unless they pose a genuine threat to public order, health, or morality, asserting that matters of faith should be left to the religious community.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Sabarimala case represents a landmark ruling in advancing gender equality and upholding constitutional morality over religious customs. By striking down the exclusionary practice, the Court reinforced the primacy of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 15, and 17, which prohibit discrimination and untouchability. The judgment emphasized that no religious tradition can override constitutional principles, especially when it results in gender-based exclusion. The ruling also reinforced the idea that customs rooted in patriarchy cannot be shielded under the guise of religious freedom. In recognizing the right of women to worship, the Court expanded the scope of gender justice in India, setting a precedent for challenging discriminatory practices in religious institutions.

However, the decision also sparked significant debate, particularly regarding judicial intervention in religious matters. Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent raised concerns about the Court’s role in determining the validity of religious customs, arguing that faith and belief systems should not be subject to judicial scrutiny unless they threaten public order, health, or morality. Critics of the majority verdict contend that it disregarded the sentiments of devotees and failed to acknowledge the unique customs of the Ayyappa temple. The ruling also led to social unrest and strong opposition from various religious groups. Despite these challenges, the judgment remains a milestone in constitutional jurisprudence, reinforcing the balance between religious freedom and the fundamental right to equality.