by The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, popularly known as the Sabarimala Temple case, is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 2018. This case involved a contentious issue regarding the entry of women aged 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala Temple, a prominent pilgrimage site in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, who is considered to be a celibate deity. The judgment is significant for its implications on gender equality, religious freedom, and the interpretation of constitutional rights.
Background of the Case:
The Sabarimala Temple, managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, had long prohibited women of menstruating age (between 10 and 50 years) from entering the temple. This practice was defended by temple authorities on the grounds that Lord Ayyappa is a celibate deity, and allowing women of reproductive age to enter the temple would violate the deity’s celibacy and sanctity.
In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld this practice, ruling that the restriction was in accordance with tradition and did not violate constitutional rights. However, in 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging this ban, arguing that it was discriminatory and violated women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 25 of the Constitution.
Issues Before the Court:
- Whether the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala Temple on the basis of age violated their fundamental rights to equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination (Article 15).
- Whether the practice was protected under Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of religion.
- Whether the restriction was essential to the practice of the religion and thus fell under the protection of ‘essential religious practices’.
- Whether the Sabarimala Temple could be considered a public place of worship where all individuals had equal access under Article 25(2)(b).
Arguments by the Petitioners:
- Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners contended that the ban on women violated Article 14 (Right to Equality), as it discriminated against women solely on the basis of biological factors, such as menstruation. They argued that such exclusion was an affront to women’s dignity and autonomy, violating Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). - Non-essential Religious Practice:
It was argued that the exclusion of women from the temple was not an essential practice of the Hindu religion. The concept of Lord Ayyappa’s celibacy could not be used to justify gender discrimination, especially when it infringed upon constitutional rights. - Article 17 – Untouchability:
The petitioners also invoked Article 17, which prohibits untouchability, arguing that the exclusion of menstruating women from the temple amounted to a form of ‘untouchability’ based on gender and biological characteristics.
Arguments by the Respondents:
- Freedom of Religion under Article 25:
The respondents contended that the Sabarimala Temple followed a unique tradition dedicated to a celibate deity, and the exclusion of women was an essential religious practice protected under Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion.
- Custom and Tradition:
They argued that the practice was rooted in centuries-old customs and traditions, which had been followed by devotees for generations. They claimed that interfering with these customs would infringe upon the religious rights of the devotees.
- Autonomy of Religious Denominations:
It was also argued that the temple was managed by a religious denomination, and under Article 26, it had the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
Judgment by the Supreme Court
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, delivered a 4:1 majority verdict, ruling in favor of the petitioners. The key highlights of the judgment were:
- Article 14 and Gender Equality:
The Court held that the practice of excluding women based on biological factors was discriminatory and violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Sex, or Place of Birth).
- Non-essential Religious Practice:
The Court ruled that the exclusion of women did not constitute an ‘essential religious practice’ under Article 25, and therefore, it was not entitled to constitutional protection. Essential religious practices are those without which a religion would lose its fundamental character, and the Court found that the ban on women did not meet this criterion.
- Right to Worship:
The Court observed that the right to worship is guaranteed to every individual under Article 25(1), and the exclusion of women violated this fundamental right. The temple, being a public place of worship, could not discriminate against women in matters of entry.
- Secularism and Constitutional Morality:
The judgment emphasized the principle of constitutional morality, stating that individual rights and gender equality must prevail over archaic religious customs. The Court underscored the secular nature of the Indian Constitution, where all practices must align with constitutional values.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole dissenting judge, opined that issues of religious practices should not be adjudicated by courts. She held that matters of faith are beyond the scope of judicial review and that constitutional morality cannot override religious beliefs. She argued that the exclusion of women was based on a long-standing custom integral to the temple’s character and should be respected.
Significance of the Judgment
- Advancement of Gender Equality:
The judgment was hailed as a significant victory for women’s rights and gender equality. It underscored that discriminatory practices, even if rooted in religion, cannot be allowed to override fundamental rights.
- Debate on Religious Freedom:
The case sparked a nationwide debate on the balance between religious freedom and constitutional principles. It highlighted the tension between personal faith and constitutional mandates.
- Push for Uniform Civil Code:
The judgment renewed discussions on the need for a Uniform Civil Code to ensure gender justice and equality across different religious communities.
Aftermath and Developments
Following the judgment, there was widespread protest by devotees and religious groups, particularly in Kerala, who opposed the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple. Several petitions were filed seeking a review of the judgment, and in 2019, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.
