JUDGEMENT

INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS V.

STATE OF KERALA
(2019) 11 SCC 1
Based on the facts of this case, it appears that there are two combatting
fundamental rights: one of religion (right of Temple Board to manage own
religious affairs, including right to regulate entry in temple) and one of equality
(equal right of women devotees to enter the temple and worship their Lord).
Therefore, a significant question which arises here is: whether right to religion
can be strictly tested on canons of equality?
The women’s fundamental right to equality and religion is violated by the
impugned Rule 3 and is therefore, unconstitutional and liable to be struck
down. All human beings were created equal and “To exclude women from
worship by allowing the right to worship to men is to place women in a
position of subordination.” Also Article 25 is conferred upon “all persons”
including women and such right has nothing to do with gender or physiological
factors.
(1) Article 32 of the Indian Constitution allows for the practice of Public
Interest Litigation in which letters written by public-spirited people or
organizations alleging violations of fundamental rights are converted into
petitions. Thus, any member of the public with sufficient interest can approach
the court for enforcing the rights of other people. PIL is necessary for the
maintenance of Rule of Law.In the case of Sabarimala, the fundamental right of
the women coming the age group are violated. And the Indian Young Lawyers
Association only helped these women to claim their violated rights. Hence the
petition filed by the young lawyers association is maintainable.

(2) This practice is discriminatory in nature and that it violates Hindu women’s
right to pray and practice religion. It also ruled that devotees of Lord Ayyappa
do not constitute a separate religious denomination as they do not have
common religious tenets peculiar to themselves other than those which are
common to the Hindu religion.
(3) The Hon’ble SC declares that Rule 3(b) of the Rules 1965, is violative and is
to be struck down which authorized the restriction as ultra vires of both
Section 3 and Section 4 of the 1965 Act. Section 3 is a non-obstante provision
which clearly stipulates that every place of public worship shall be open to all
classes and sections of Hindus, women being one of them, irrespective of any
custom or usage to the contrary. Further, Proviso to Section 4(1) creates an
exception to the effect that the regulations/rules made under Section 4(1) shall
not discriminate, in any manner whatsoever, against any Hindu on the ground
that he/she belongs to a particular section or class. The Hon’ble SC held that
the language of both these provisions indicate that custom and usage must
make space to the rights of all sections and classes of Hindus to offer prayers at
places of public worship. Any interpretation to the contrary would annihilate
the purpose of the 1965 Act and the fundamental right of such women as they
are entitled to practice religion under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India.