A Project On

INDIAN YOUNG LAWYER ASSOCIATION & ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

[Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirement for B.A.LL.B

(Hons.) 5-year integrated course]
Session: 2020-21

Submitted On: "03 February 2021"

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Hardik Jain Ms. Deeksha Sharma

Roll No.-34 Faculty

Semester-III Section-A

1
 Declaration of Originality

I, Hardik Jain, hereby declare that this project titled " INDIAN YOUNG LAWYER
ASSOCIATION & ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS " is based on the original
research work carried out by me under the guidance and supervision of "Ms. Deeksha Sharma".

The interpretation put forth is based on my reading and understanding of the original
texts. The books, articles, and websites, etc. which have been relied upon by me have been duly
acknowledged at the respective places in the text.

For the present project which I am submitting to the university, no degree or diploma has
been conferred on me before, either in this or in any other university.

Date:03\02\2021

Signature

Name: Hardik Jain

Roll No.- 34

Semester- III Section- A

2
 CERTIFICATE

Ms. DEEKSHA SHARMA Date:23\01\2021

Faculty
University five-year law college
University of Rajasthan, Jaipur

This is to certify that Hardik Jain student of the semester (III), section(B) of University
Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan has carried out project title " INDIAN YOUNG
LAWYER ASSOCIATION & ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS " under my
supervision. It is an investigation of a minor research project. The student has completed
research work in stipulated time and according to norms prescribed for the purpose.

Supervisor

3
 Acknowledgment

I have written this project titled, " INDIAN YOUNG LAWYER ASSOCIATION &
ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS ", under the supervision of, Ms. DEEKSHA
SHARMA, Faculty of University Five Year Law College, University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Her
valuable suggestions herein have not only helped me immensely in making this work but also in
developing an analytical approach in this work.

I found no words to express my sense of graduate for Director SANJULA THANVI for
her constant encouragement at every step.

I am extremely grateful to the librarian and library staff of the college for the support and
cooperation extended by them from time to time

Hardik Jain

4
 Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER-1……………………………………………………………………..6
INTRODCTION…………………………………………………………………………………6

CHAPTER-2 .................................................................................................................................................... 7

BACKGROUNG……………... ................................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER-3 .................................................................................................................................................... 9
ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………9

CHAPTER-4 ..................................................................................................................................................10

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 12

5
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYER ASSOCIATION & ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: 2018 SCC Online SC 1690

Introduction

The case was filed in 2006 by the Indian Young Lawyer’s Association through public interest
litigation (PIL) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The case deals with an important
aspect i.e. “Entry of Women in Sabarimala Temple”. There were many issues raised in which it
was argued by petitioners that provisions related to the restriction of the women entry in Temple
are unconstitutional as it violates Article 14, Article 15, Article 17, Article 25, Article 26 of the
Indian Constitution. The Sabarimala Temple is situated in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the
western ghat mountain ranges of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. This temple is famous for Lord
Ayyappa. It forbids the entry of women in their menstruating age that are between the age of 10
to 50 years stated that it is a place of worship.

6
 Background

On 28th September 2018, a 4:1 majority held that the custom is unconstitutional. Justice Indu
Malhotra dissented. Here are the four opinions:

• Chief Justice Misra (on behalf of himself and Khanwilkar J.)

• Justice Nariman

• Justice Chandrachud

• Justice Malhotra

The Sabarimala Temple, considered the abode of Lord Ayyappa, is located in the Periyar Tiger
Reserve in the Western Ghat mountain ranges of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. It
prohibitted the entry of women in their ‘menstruating years’ (between the ages of 10 to 50), on
the grounds that it is a place of worship.

In 2006, 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.

The State contended that the Temple's priests have the final authority in this matter. The
Travancore Devaswom Board has the legal authority to manage the Sabarimala Temple's
administration. Article 26 of the Constitution, guarantees a religious denomination the right to
manage its own internal religious affairs. Furthermore, the Sabarimala custom was protected by
Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965
("Public Worship Rules"). The rule allowed the exclusion of women from public places of
worship, if the exclusion was based on 'custom'.

In 1991, the exclusion had been challenged before the Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran v.
The Secretary, Travancore. The Court ruled that the exclusion was constitutional and justified,
as it was a long-standing custom prevailing since time immemorial.

7
On 18th August 2006, the Supreme Court issued notices to the parties. On 7th March 2008,
the matter was referred to a three-judge Bench. It came up for hearing seven years later, on
11th January 2016. On 20th February 2017, the Court expressed its inclination to refer the case
to a Constitution Bench. Finally on 13th October 2017, a Bench comprising of Chief Justice
Dipak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi, and Justice Ashok Bhushan ordered a Constitution Bench to
pass judgement on the case. On 28th September 2018, the Constitution Bench delivered its
judgment.

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.

More than 50 review petitions were subsequently filed by various organisations including
the National Ayyappa Devotees (Women's) Association, the Nair Service Society, & the All
Kerala Brahmin's Association. The review petitions will be disposed of after the Court first
decides certain ovearching constitutional questions regarding the interplay between the
fundamental rights to equality and freedom of religion.

8
 ANALYSIS

India, being a country of diverse culture and people, society and religion are an inseparable part.
The case of Sabarimala is a controversy between Fundamental Rights and Religion. The status of
women in Indian society has always been less than that of men due to the domination of
patriarchal philosophy and mindset of people. Women had to fight and struggle to attain their
position equally as men at various public platforms. The case of Sabarimala is also an example
of women fighting against the patriarchal philosophy of religious order which prohibits their
entry to the temple.

The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court who decided upon the matter and gave the verdict
reasoned different things and had various opinions for the same. Justice Indu Malhotra had a
dissenting opinion regarding the matter. Several arguments were brought in front of the Supreme
Court from the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners contended that this restrictive
practice by the temple authorities by not allowing women to enter the temple is clearly violative
of their fundamental rights given by the Constitution of India and is discriminatory to them.

The Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of religion for every individual and
groups under Article 25 and Article 26 where every person is free to practice propagate and
profess any religion of his choice. Moreover, Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits the state
from discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste and sex.

The respondents, on the other hand, defended that the constitution also grants to every religious
denomination the right to determine its own rules and stated the primary reason for not allowing
the entry of women to the temple as the naisthika brahmacharya nature of the deity Lord
Ayyapan. It was claimed that the presence of women questioned the purity and sanctity of the
deity and also it distracts the devotees. The Court dismissed the reason on the ground of equality
and perpetration of stereotypes in the society. It was of the view that both men and women are
equal and no one should be discriminated or restricted in any form. The ideology of purity and
pollution of the temple authorities for not letting the menstruating women enter the temple was
clearly in violation of Article 17 which talks about abolition of untouchability in any form.

9
The Supreme Court took into consideration the Essential Practices Test which has been
consistently used by the courts from time to time. It empowers the court to determine whether a
religious practice is an ‘essential practice’ or not as per the notions and beliefs of that religious
community. This test was coined by the Supreme Court in 1954 in the case of The
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha,
Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt. The test lays down that what constitutes an essential part of
religion will be ascertained with reference to the tenets and doctrines of that religion itself.

The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave their verdict on the majority of 4:1. Chief
Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice Khanwilkar believed 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 opined that any religious practice or
custom that violated the dignity of women by denying her the entry just because she menstruates
was completely unconstitutional. The judgment contained lines as “The stigma around
menstruation has been built up around traditional beliefs in the impurity of menstruating women.
They have no place in a constitutional order. The menstrual status of a woman cannot be a valid
constitutional basis to deny her the dignity of being and the autonomy of personhood (Para 5).”

In the five bench judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Indu Malhotra, being the only woman
judge, to a much surprise gave a dissenting opinion. She based her judgment on the notion that
issues of deep religious sentiments and morality, the courts should not intervene even if it seems
discriminatory. It is a matter of personal faith and India is a land of diverse faiths. Judges cannot
intervene and decide on whether a practice is violative of fundamental rights or not. A religious
denomination has freedom to believe and even practice even if their beliefs are illogical or
irrational. She held that the fundamental right to equality guaranteed to women under Article 14
cannot override Article 25, which guarantees every individual the right to profess, practice and
propagate their faith.

Justice Malhotra sets a dangerous precedent by stating that courts should not delve into the
rationality of religious practices. One should not forget that if it were not for the judiciary’s
activism, the rigid societal structures would have still clawed on to the unbending orthodoxy.

10
The judgment of the Supreme Court on Sabarimala had multiple effects. On one hand, many
people have supported the decision and on the other, many people including many women have
criticized the Supreme Court for such a verdict in a belief that the court had infringed their
religious beliefs and morals.

The implications of this judgment by the Supreme Court are far fledged. After the verdict, many
changes mainly gender-specific would be seen in the infrastructure of temple premises.
Moreover only be pronouncing the verdict would not ensure its applicability at the ground level.
The court needs to make sure about the happenings at ground level and needs to ensure that the
women are not denied entry. Sabarimala is not the only temple where discrimination exists on
the ground of religious beliefs, but there are many other temples in the country where men are
not allowed. This verdict has opened the floor for the Supreme Court as to analyze whether the
judiciary needs to intervene in these aspects as well and are these practices also discriminatory.

11
 Conclusion

In the end, I will just say that every rule that is imposed by supreme court on the matter of
religious issue for the welfare of the society is need not that they will be acceptable by all, but if
that rule is for the eradication of social evil such as Dowry, Sati then it must be welcomed but if
that rule is uprooting the social balance of your custom and the society then it must be
questioned again and again. The question should be raised in a gentle manner, vandalism is not
the perfect way to question executives. In India, there are several temples and every temple has a
history to tell if any women who is a devotee of Lord Ayyappa then she herself will respect the
tradition of that temple. Fake Feminism or Pseudo Feminism is forming its web across the
country and we have to be careful from this. The overdose of anything is very harmful and this
principle perfectly applies when we talk about Secularism in India, The situation is getting worse
day by day, it turned into Sickularism from secularism. Bollywood movie provides a platform to
promote the overdose of the secularism concept. We all should have to beware of all the vultures
who are trying to attack a particular religion. After all, India is a nation which has a diverse
culture and a perfect blending of different culture also exists in the atmosphere of this country,
this should not be disturbed at any cost.

12
 Bibliography
https://blog.ipleaders.in/case-comment-sabarimala-case/
https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/sabrimala-temple-entry-case
https://indianlegalsolution.com/critical-analysis-of-sabarimala-
verdict/

13