Sabarimala Temple Entry

Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala

Background
Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a public interest litigation petition before the
Supreme Court challenging the Sabrimala Temple's custom of excluding women. The
Association argued that the custom violates the rights to equality under Article 14 and
freedom of religion under Article 25 of female worshippers.

In a 4:1 majority, the court ruled that Sabarimala's exclusion of women violated the
fundamental rights of women between the ages of 10-50 years and Rule 3(b) of the Public
Worship Rules was unconstitutional. Justice Indu Malhotra delivering a dissenting opinion
observed that in a secular polity, it was not for the Courts to interfere in matters of religion
and the same must be left to those practicing the religion. 

Primary Issues
Whether the practice constitutes an ‘essential religious practice’ under Article 25? Whether a
religious institution can assert its claim to do so under the right to manage its own affairs in
the matters of religion?

Whether the exclusionary practice based on a biological factor exclusive to the female gender
amounts to ‘discrimination’? Whether this practice violates the core of Articles 14, 15 and
17?

Decision
Chief Justice Misra's opinion
Religion is a way of life intrinsically linked to the dignity of an individual and patriarchal
practices based on exclusion of one gender in favour of another could not be allowed to
infringe upon the fundamental freedom to practice and profess one's religion. He stated that
the exclusion of women between the ages of 10-50 years practiced by the Sabarimala Temple
denuded women of their freedom of worship, guaranteed under Article 25(1).

The devotees of Ayyappa did not pass the constitutional test to be declared a separate
religious identity. He said that they are Hindus. Thus he held that the temple's denominational
right to manage its own internal affairs, under Article 26(b), was subject to the State's social
reform mandate under Article 25(2)(b). Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to make any law that
opens a public Hindu institution to all 'classes and sections' of Hindus. Justice Misra
interpreted 'classes and sections' to include the gendered category of women.

Justice Chandrachud's opinion

the exclusion of women between the ages of 10-50 years by the Sabarimala Temple was
contrary to constitutional morality and that it subverted the ideals of autonomy, liberty, and
dignity.  He held that the morality conceptualised under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution cannot have the effect of eroding the fundamental rights guaranteed under these
Articles. Justice Chandrachud concurred with the opinions delivered by CJI Dipak Misra &
Justice Nariman to hold that the Ayyappans, or worshippers of Lord Ayyappa, did not satisfy
the judicially enunciated requirements to be considered a separate religious denomination. He
held that the exclusion was not an essential religious practice.

The menstrual status of a woman cannot be a valid constitutional basis to deny her the dignity
and the stigma around the same had no place in a Constitutional order. Significantly, Justice
Chandrachud also dealt with the argument that the exclusion was a form of untouchability
prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.

Justice Malhotra's dissenting opinion

She held that the Sabarimala Temple satisfies the requirements for being considered a
separate religious denomination. She therefore held that the Sabarimala Temple is protected
under Article 26(b) to manage its internal affairs and is not subject to the social reform
mandate under Article 25(2)(b), which applies only to Hindu denominations. Justice
Malhotra held that 'morality' (constitutional morality) must be understood in the context of
India being a pluralistic society.

She held that Rule 3(b) does not stand in conflict with its parent Act, the Kerala Hindu Places
of Public Worship Act. She emphasised that the rule 'carves out an exception in the case of
public worship'. She held that the rule was consistent with Article 26(b) of the Constitution.
Unlike Justice Chandrachud, she concluded that untouchability does not extend to gender.

Aftermath
The case Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young lawyers Association, also popularly
known as the Sabarimala Review Petition, deals with the legal issue of whether the
Supreme Court can refer the cases to review to larger bench, relating to the questioning of
law. The Supreme Court headed by Justice Bobde, said that the case was examined on the
matters and scope of judicial review on the point of religious faith and women’s right to enter
the temple. The court after listening to the arguments gave a clarification on justifying the
review to be made by larger bench and also declared certain rights and powers exercised by
the courts in matters related to questioning of the law and the judicial proceedings.