Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala

Citation:  

Court :  Supreme Court of India

Facts of the case: Sabarimala is a Hindu pilgrimage center located at the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghat, Kerala. Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition with the Supreme Court contending that Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of public worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965 that states that “ Women who are not by custom  and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship  shall not be entitled to enter or offer worship in any place of public worship” violates the constitutional guarantees of equality , non-discrimination and religious freedom. It cis claimed by the Devaswom Board, that its deity, Lord Ayyappa, is a “Naisthik Brahmachari” and women entry will affect the celibacy of the deity. It was stated that the ban on ‘menstruating women’ was enforced under Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965 on account of this reason .The  issue of restriction of women from entering the temple was challenged before the Kerala High Court in 1991 in the case of S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Tiruvanathpuram and others where it was held by Kerals High Court that the prohibition by the Travancore Board does not violate the Constitution of Indian or the  1965 Kerala Law. In 2017, the Supreme Court after noting several judgments of similar nature referred the case to a constitutional bench of 5 members.

Issue :

1. Whether the practice of excluding women from entry was based on  gender which amounted to discrimination and hence, violated Articles 14, 15 and 17
2. Whether the practice of excluding such women constituted an “essential religious practice” under Article 25 and whether a religious institution could assert a claim in that regard under the umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion?
3. Whether the Sabarimala Temple had a denominational character and, if so, was it permissible on the part of a ‘religious denomination’ managed by a statutory board to violate constitutional morality?
4. Whether Rule 3(b) of the KHPW Rules, 1965 was ultra vires the KHPW Act, 1965 and whether it violated Part III of the Constitution?

Judgment: The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court which gave their verdict on the majority of 4:1 held that the restrictions upon the entry of women between the ages of 10-50 into the Sabrimala shrine were unconstitutional and struck down Rule 3(b) of the KHPW Act. The Court opined that devotion could not be subjected to gender discrimination and exclusion on the grounds of biological, physiological features like menstruation is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Both men and woman have a right to worship bestowed on them and the practice by the temple authorities was discriminatory and violative of the Indian Constitution.

Justice Chandrachud further observed that any religious practice or custom that violated the dignity of women by denying her the entry just because she menstruates was completely unconstitutional.  He also stated that the exclusion of women on the basis of these grounds was comparable to a form of untouchability, following notions of “purity and pollution”, which served to stigmatize individuals, and could not be justified in the scheme of constitutional morality,. He emphasized that such categorization is a system that has been explicitly prohibited under Article 17 dealing with untouchability. Moreover, imposing such rules on the basis of menstrual status violated the dignity of women which was guaranteed by the constitution.

The Court also considered the doctrine of essential practices developed on the subject while making a decision on the case.  Justice I. Malhotra, in her sole dissenting opinion held that Ayyappans or worshippers at the Sabarimala Temple satisfied the requirements of being a religious denomination, and therefore could avail the protections of Article 26. She further held that the limited restriction on the entry of women would not be violative of Part III of the Constitution.

 The case holds monumental value in a country like India that’s following secularity as a core essence of its constitution. It dealt with question of individual right versus religious right and raised  serious questions about faith and practices of a religious denomination or sect. The court came to the conclusion that in case of conflict between the right of a religious denomination and that of an individual, it was the individual’s right that was to be given preference.

The decision is considered as a radical judgment which would help to rationalize religious practices which are prevailing in Indian society. This judgment protects women’s rights in public places and ensures the individual liberty to them. It is to be noted that a review petition has been filed befored the court to reconsider the judgment.