Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2018)

In the landmark case of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala, 2018 (The Sabrimala Temple Case) the women were banned from entering the Sabarimala temple who were menstruating. In 2006 this tradition was challenged by the Indian Young Lawyers Association citing that it violated constitutional rights. The Supreme Court with a 4:1 verdict ruled that the ban was indeed unconditional in nature. Many questions were raised and nationwide protests were done. In 2019 the review of the verdict was ordered which is still pending. 

Brief details on Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2018)

Name of the Case Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (The Sabrimala Temple Case), 2018
Case Number W.P.(C) No.-000373-000373 – 2006
Diary Number 18956/2006
Parties of the Case Petitioner – Indian Young Lawyers AssociationRespondent  – State of Kerala
Equivalent Citations Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 
Type of the Case Civil writ petition
Court Supreme Court of India
Statutes, Provisions, Judgements Involved In the Case Article 14 of Constitution of India, 1950 Article 15 of Constitution of India, 1950Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, 1950Article 17 of Constitution of India, 1950Article 25 of Constitution of India, 1950Article 26 of Constitution of India, 1950Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 
Bench Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Judgement Date  28.09.2018

Background of the case

This case was first filed in the High Court of Kerala in 1990 where it was demanded to prohibit the passage of women in Sabarimala temple. The ban on the women of specific age was maintained by the High Court of Kerala in the temple. Again in the year 2006, a case was filed in the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This case was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association which is a registered association. They demanded that females should be allowed to enter into the temple who are between ages 10 years to 50 years. 

The matter after 2 years was referred to a three judge bench in 2008. The issues were brought up by the Supreme Court in January 2016. The court stated that this is not protected under morality. The Government of Kerala in 2016 answered to the court that this ban was made with the intention of protecting the fundamental rights of the devotees of the Sabarimala temple. This was right to practice and propagate which was being followed.

The matter was then referred by the Supreme Court to a constitutional bench. It was contented in the writ petition that Rule 3 (b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 read with Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 is not legal and disregards Article 14, 15 ans 25 of the Constitution. 

Legal provisions involved in the case


Legal provision
Explanation
Article 14 of Constitution of India 1950  Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons.
Article 15 of Constitution of India 1950 Prohibits discrimination by the State solely on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Article 15(3) of Constitution of India 1950 Allows the State to make special provisions for women and children despite Article 15.
Article 17 of Constitution of India 1950 Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
Article 25 of Constitution of India 1950 Secures the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Article 26 of Constitution of India 1950 Grants religious denominations the freedom to manage their own religious affairs.
Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965  Mandates that Hindu public places of worship be open to all Hindus regardless of caste or class.
Section 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965 Restricts entry of women aged 10 to 50 years into certain Hindu places of worship. 

Key issues involved in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2018)

  1. Whether it is unconstitutional and unfair to stop women from entering a temple on the basis of biological factors under Article 14, 15 and 17 of the Indian Constitution?
  2. Whether Rule 3(b) is ultra vires to the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965?
  3. Whether the practice of banning women breaks their basic right to equality and non-discrimination? And whether it is allowed under ‘morality’ which is protected under Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution?
  4. Whether Rule 3 (b) violates Part III of the Constitution?
  5. Whether the Sabrimala temple can be treated as a separate religious sect who has its own rights as mentioned under Article 26?

Grounds raised by parties in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2018)

Submission by petitioner in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala

  • It was argued by the petitioner that the main issue revolves around the practice of the temple which prohibits women of age 10 to 50 years from entering the temples. 
  • It was further argued that such a restriction on entering inside a temple was not a building block of the Hindu religion. 
  • Hence such practice cannot be protected under the Constitution’s rights and freedoms on religions. 
  • As the temple is run by Travancore Devaswom Board which gets funds from the public they cannot claim that they are a separate religious group and they have the freedom to not follow the Constitution. 
  • It was an unfair practice to ban women from entering into the temple and was also violating the right to equality under the Constitution which is given to all citizens.
  • The values of the Constitution of India were being violated which included gender equality, gender justice and fairness. 

Submission by respondent in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala

  • The defense used by the respondents was that this practice which was being followed was a part of traditional practice. 
  • Prohibiting women from entering into Sabarimala temple when they were menstruating has been followed since centuries as a traditional practice. 
  • It was argued by the respondents that the god of Sabarimala Temple (Lord Ayyappa) has the fundamental rights.  Respondents further argued that as per Hindu religion we consider a deity as a living being and as the temple pays taxes the deity should also have rights under the Indian Constitution. 
  • It was argued that the celibate status of Lord Ayyappa has to be protected. Giving a permission to the women who are menstruating would violate the right under Article 25 (1) which gives the right to practice Brahmacharya.
  • The respondents also claimed that it would violate the right to privacy under Article 21 if women who are menstruating were  allowed to enter the temple. 
  • The respondents claimed that the temple has their own traditions which makes it a separate religious group. Even if the temple is open to people of different religions it would not change their status. 
  • As per the custom, the devotees of Ayyappa are supposed to visit a mosque before they enter into the temple which shows that the temple has its own spiritual identity. 

Judicial Analysis in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2018)

Ratio Decidendi

Ratio decidendi in simple words means the main legal reason behind the decision of the court, and this becomes a legal precedent for the cases in the future. Ratio decidendi is the main legal reasoning which is binding in nature in the entire case and other side comments made by the judges are not important, they are only supporting comments. 

In the present case, the rule banning women from entering into the temple was struck down by the Apex Court. This violated a lot of constitutional rights as per the court. It was unconstitutional and  unfair to have a rule which denied the women from entering the temple in their menstrual cycle.

It was allowed by the court that all women of any age can enter into the temple stating that faith does not discriminate on the basis of gender. Devotion is not limited by any gender. Further the court stated that spiritual practices should be in alignment with constitutional rights and values such as dignity and equality. The court supported the spiritual freedom under Article 25 in the end but with equality and non discrimination. 

Decision of the Supreme Court

WIth 4:1 verdict, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional and struck down Rule 3 (b) stating that putting restrictions on women on entering the temple between the age of 10 years to 50 years. Directions were passed by the government to ensure that it is safe for women entering the temple. 

It was held by the majority that devotees of Lord Ayyappa are not considered as a separate religious denomination. The Rule 3 (b) was ultra vires in nature with the objective of the Act. The court further also ruled that Rule 3 (b) violated Part III of the Indian Constitution. 

Chief Justice Dipak Mishra

Said that the Constitution and people’s rights must always be respected. Discrimination against women in religious places should end. Religious customs can’t go against the right to gender equality. 

Chief Justice R. F Nariman 

Spoke in favor of equal rights for women in religious matters. Said that banning women based on menstruation is unfair and violates their rights. Reminded that the court must protect people’s rights.

Chief Justice D.Y Chandrachud

Explained in detail how the Constitution supports gender equality. Criticized the idea that menstruation makes someone “impure,” saying it leads to unfair treatment. Said religious traditions should change to match constitutional values.

Chief Justice A.M Khanwilkar

Agreed with the majority that stopping women from entering the temple is against the Constitution. Emphasized the need to balance religious freedom with gender equality.

Chief Justice Indu Malhotra

Disagreed with the others. Believed that courts should not interfere in religious traditions. Said people’s beliefs should be respected and that such changes should come from within society, not through court rulings.

After the 2018 judgment, many people asked the court to review and change the decision. In 2019, a five-judge bench decided that a bigger bench of nine judges should look into the matter because it involved important questions about religious freedom and who can enter religious places. These review requests are still waiting for a final decision from the nine-judge bench. Until then, the 2018 judgment still applies. The task of the nine-judge bench is to decide whether the 2018 decision should stay or be changed, by looking at the bigger constitutional issues involved.

Conclusion

The Sabarimala case was a landmark ruling in the entire country. The case caught national attention to the conflict between constitutional rights and religious rights. It was ruled by the Supreme Court that a centuries old ban on women who are menstruating from entering into the temple was unconstitutional in nature. This decision was a significant ruling which prompted gender equality and inclusivity even in religious places. This case had questioned the old and ingrained religious customs which highlight the significance of fundamental rights. This case set a legal precedent for challenging discriminatory religious practices in the country. 

References

Categories

Related Posts

Linkedin-in Instagram Facebook