Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors.

vs.
The State of Kerala and Ors.

Petitioner(s): Indian Young Lawyers Association; Dr. Laxmi Shastri; Prerna Kumari; Alka
Sharma; Sudha Pal.
Respondent(s): The State of Kerala and Ors.
Case Citation (2019) 11 SCC 1
BENCH: Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra, Justice A. M khanwilkar, Justice R F
Nariman, Justice D Y Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A three-judge panel of the Apex Court submitted this matter to a Constitution Bench. The
Court was required to rule on the constitutional validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu
Places of Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 (KHPW Act), which barred women of
menstruating age, i.e., respectively the ages of 10 to 50, from entering the Sabarimala Temple
dedicated to Lord Ayyappan and to issue instructions to shrines officials and local authorities
to facilitate such access.
This exemption was defended by the old tradition that women of menstrual age would be a
disgrace to the Temple's principle of chastity, which was backed up by Rule 3(b) of the
KHPW Act. "Women at such time during which they are not by custom and usage allowed to
enter a place of public worship," according to Rule 3(b).
In the matter of S. Mahendran vs. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board,
Thiruvananthpuram and Ors (AIR 1993 Ker. 42), the Kerala High Court decided that such a
limitation did not violate women's fundamental rights. The case was eventually heard by the
Supreme Court's Constitution Bench.
ISSUES RAISED
• Whether the shrine authority's limitation breaches Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15
(discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), and 17 (Abolition of
Untouchability) of the Constitution without being shielded by "morality" as defined in
Articles 25(Free practise of religion) and 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs)?
• Whether the exclusion of such women comes under an "essential religious practice" as
defined by Article 25.
• Is there a denominational component to the Sabarimala Temple?
• Is Rule 3(b) [authorized Hindu groups to forbid women from common places of devotion]
of the KHPW Rules, 1965, in violation of the KHPW Act, 1965?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS
The Petitioners claimed that prejudice towards women of menstrual age was irrational under
Article 14 since there was no fundamental justification for establishing a different, prohibited
class of women aged 10 to 50. They further claimed that the Lord Ayyappa shrine and its
worshippers did not qualify as a distinct religious sect under Article 26 because the religious
procedures were conducted at Sabarimala Temple during 'puja' as well as other religious rites
are not unlike those practiced in other Hindu shrines.
The right to privacy of women was violated by the mandatory declaration of menstruation
status. They used the decision in K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs. Union of India ((2017) 10
SCC 1) to claim that denying menstruation women access was discriminatory and infringed
on their dignity.
Mr. Raju Ramchandran, an Amicus Curiae, argued that the restrictive practice's adoption
necessitated women's forced admission of their menstruation status and age, akin to
compelled admission that infringed their right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents asserted that Rule 3(b) was not unlawful since it only denied entrance to
women of a certain age spectrum for a certain purpose, rather than all women as a category.
Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, an Amicus Curiae, also contended that Lord Ayyappa followers may
be deemed a religious sect, and thus were not vulnerable to Article 25's reform rules, but
could govern their internal affairs within Article 26.
This prohibition is further supported by the Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Act, 1965.
Religious activities are as old as the custom of honouring the Temple's deity. In certain
temples, such as the Bramha temple in Pushkar, men are likewise barred from entering and
worshipping.
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
The Court handed down its decision in this matter, on On September 28, 2018, ruling by a 4:1
majority that the women's limitation in Sabarimala Shrine is arbitrary and unconstitutional. It
ruled that the practice infringed on Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21, and 25 of the Constitution,
which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, and religious freedom (1). The Kerala Hindu
Places of Public Worship Act's Rule 3(b) was declared invalid. The Supreme Court has ruled
that women of all ages can visit the Sabarimala temple, stating that “devotion cannot be
discriminated against on the basis of sex.
Religion is a lifestyle tied to a person's integrity, and patriarchal practices founded on the
rejection of one sexual identity in preference of another cannot be permitted to impede on
one's fundamental right to practise and proclaim one's religion.
The social exemption of women relying on physiological characteristics such as menstrual
status, according to Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, was exactly equivalent to a type of
untouchability, predicated on conceptions of "purity and pollution," which served to
demonise people, and therefore cannot be legitimised in the system of constitutional morality,
despite being expressly forbidden under Article 17.
In her opposing decision, Justice I. Malhotra stated that the matter should be dismissed due to
the Petitioners' lack of standing. She also found that Ayyappans, or Sabarimala Temple
devotees, met the conditions of being a religious group, and hence may benefit from Article
26 safeguards. She also stated that the modest prohibition on women's entry would not have
been in violation of the fundamental rights of the Constitution.