9/12/22, 6:01 PM Case Summary: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs.

ers Association & Ors vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. - LawLex.Org

LATEST MNLU Mumbai launches unique Master Programme in IPR, aims to cr… Search...

Home About Us  News Lex Pedia  Lex Bulletin  YouTube News Work With Us Contribute 

YOU ARE AT: Home » Case Summary » Case Summary: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Summary: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs. The State 0 SUBMIT YOUR POST FOR FREE

of Kerala & Ors.

BY SMRUTIREKHA SINGH
ON JUN 8, 2021 CASE SUMMARY

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram LinkedIn

Case Name:  Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.

SUPPORT US
Citation:  Writ Petition (Civil) No 373 of 2006

Name of Donor
Court: Supreme Court

Bench: Deepak Mishra, A.N. Khanwilkar, Rohintan Nariman, Indu Malhotra, D.Y.   Chandrachud
Amount (in USD) U

Parties:

Appellant: The safer, easier way to p

 Indian Young Lawyers Association

WRITE A CASE SUMMARY

 

Respondent:  

Travancore Devaswom Board

State of Kerala

Pandalam Royal Family

Chief Thanthri

CATEGORIES

Select Category

RECENT POSTS

Admissions open for PG Diploma in Technology & L

MNLU Mumbai and AEGIS

https://lawlex.org/case-summary/case-summary-indian-young-lawyers-association-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-ors/26497 1/4
9/12/22, 6:01 PM Case Summary: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. - LawLex.Org
Facts: Admissions open for LL.M. (Executive) 2022-23 |
MNLU Mumbai

In 1990, a case was filed in Kerala High Court demanding for the prohibition on the passage of females inside the Certificate Course on Law and Alternative Sexualitie
Sabarimala temple. The Kerala High Court had maintained the ban of females of specific age section inside the 2nd Ed.

sacred place of Lord Ayyappa. In 2006, a case was filed under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme
Take up probono work and work for the Marginalize
Court by the registered association of Indian Young Lawyers demanding entry of females between 10 to 50 years. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud at MNLU Mumbai’s First
Convocation

After 2 years in 2008, the matter was referred to the three-judge bench. In January 2016 Supreme Court of India JCLG Call for Papers | Volume V Issue 2 | National L
brought up issues against such bans and said that this isn’t as protected under constitutional morality. In April University, Jodhpur

2016, the Kerala government answered that it is to protect the fundamental right to practice and propagate the
religion of Sabarimala devotees. In 2017 Supreme Court of India referred the matter to the Constitutional bench.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR
In the writ petition, it was contended that Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu places of worship (authorisation of entry)
NEWSLETTER
rules, 1965 (hereinafter alluded as 1965 guidelines) outlined in the exercise of the forces given by sec 4 of the
Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting
Kerala Hindu place of worship (authorisation of section) act, 1965 (hereinafter alluded as 1965 Act) is illegal on
stories handpicked for you.
the grounds that it disregards Articles 14,15,25 and 51A(e) of Indian Constitution.

Enter Your Email ID Here..

Issues:[1]

1. Is the exclusionary practice, which depends on the normal biological process to the female gender SUBSCRIBE
orientation is violative of the very essence of Articles 14,15 and 17 and not secured by morality as utilized in
We respect your privacy and won't spam you
Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian constitution?

2. Is this exclusionary practice establishes a fundamental religious practise under Art 25 of the Indian
constitution? FOLLOW US

3. Is the Ayappa Temple is a Religious group under Art 26 of the Indian constitution? If yes, regardless of
whether such denomination managed by the legal public authority and financed under Art 290A of the
Indian constitution, is it permitted to practice such derogatory practice which is violative of under Articles
14,15(3),39(a) and 51A(e).

4. Is Rule 3 of 1965 Rules allows religious denomination to restrict the passage of females between the age of
10 to 50? What’s more, assuming this is the case, is it not against Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Indian
constitution?

5. Is rule 3(b) of the Rules of 1965 is ultra vires to the Act of 1965? In case we consider it as intra vires, will it
be violative of the basics of Part III of the constitution?

Arguments by Petitioners[2]

It was contended that exclusionary practice brings in discrimination against females as a class since the
restriction to female aged between 10 to 50 years. In Bennett Coleman and Co. and Ors. v.Union of India and
Ors[3]. It is said that this segregation is just on the ground of sex on the grounds that the organic element of the
feminine cycle radiates from the attributes of a specific sex.

It was contended that such practice which is exclusively based on gender is violative of Article15(1) and Article
15(2)(b). This customary practice abuses article 14 in light of the fact that the characterization does not have a
Constitutional object. It also violates the individual right to practice religion. The mensuration period of women is
not permanent, hence banning them permanently is violating the constitution. It is contended that Lord Ayyappa
don’t have a religious denomination; the name or little difference of ceremonies does not allow the devotees to be
a separate religious denomination.  Moreover, if devotees of Lord Ayyappa establish a religious denomination, the
ban on females is certifiably not a fundamental religious practice and it’s not necessary and it also violates Article
21 and Article 17.

Also Read:  Case Summary: M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh
Das & Ors

Arguments by Respondents[4]

https://lawlex.org/case-summary/case-summary-indian-young-lawyers-association-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-ors/26497 2/4
9/12/22, 6:01 PM Case Summary: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. - LawLex.Org
It was contended that the expression is given in article 25(2)(b) shows that there should not be caste-based
discrimination.

It is contended that females underneath the age of 10-50 can freely go into any temple and exercise their
entitlement to worship but this situation is not discriminatory as it is to maintain the purely of this particular
temple.i.e. Naishtik Brahmachari. They are allowed to go to other temples of Lord Ayyappa. The customs were
practised since immemorial without any meddling and hence it is valid as per Art 13(3) (b). Moreover, the
restriction is valid as it might cause distraction in the men due to the presence of women.

It was also argued that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do have a religious denomination since they follow Ayyappa
Dharma, every one of the devotees is called Ayyappans and all-female who are more than the age of 50 and who
are allowed in the temple are called Malikapurams.

It was also considered that Lord Ayyappa is a religious denomination now which was held by the Kerala high
court in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors.[5] It is also contended that the
fundamental object of Art 17 is to ban caste-based untouchability in the Hindu religion and no such practise is
carried on in the temple.

Judgement:[6]

The court held the case in favour of the petitioner in a 4:1 majority.

Justice Chandrachud in his judgment expressed that restricting just females from the right to worship implies
the subordination of females. He further remarks that the exclusionary practice which depends on ‘biological
factors’ that are non-religious in nature, recommending that females can’t keep the ‘vrutham’ are taking part in
stereotypes encouraging discrimination in society. Moreover, only because of mensuration restricting someone is
unconstitutional and Art 17 also include women hence practising such will lead to a patriarchal push towards the
society.

Justice Mishra proclaimed any rules which separates and sabotage females’ dignity will be struck down as it is
violative of Article 14 and 15. Moreover, devotees of Ayyappa didn’t pass the test for the religious denomination
and hence it cannot be gain separate religious identity. He interpreted that ‘classes and sections’ also include
women and told that it needs state mandate reform. Futhermore, he struck down rule 3(b) of the Kerela Hindu
Places of Public Worship Rules of 1965 and said that practising prayers without women are not an essential
religious practice.

Justice Nariman delivered a concurring opinion saying he cannot grant the devotees separate denomination
but can call them Hindus who worship idol Ayyappa and declared denominational freedom under Art 25(2)(b).
 He said that denying female their right to worship is unconstitutional.

Justice Malhotra gave a dissenting opinion saying religious practice must be in the internal part of the temple
and it’s their internal affair, no matter if their practice is rational and illogical. She mentioned that the temple is
qualified as a religious denomination. Moreover, she said Art 14 does provide the right to equality to women but it
cannot overlap Art 25. She denies that the practice was violative of Art 17, the discrimination was simply to
maintain the purity of the temple. The discrimination mentioned in Art 17 does not include gender-based hence it
was not violative.

[1] Vineet Mishra, Brief analysis of Sabarimala Temple case Indian Young Lawyers Association v/s Kerala,
Legal Service India E-Journal, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4872-brief-analysis-of-
sabarimala-temple-case-indian-young-lawyers-association-v-s-kerala.html

[2] Sabrimala Case Summary, LAW CIRCA (Dec 15, 2019), https://lawcirca.com/sabarimala-case-summary/

[3] 1973 AIR 106, 1973 SCR (2) 757

[4] Supra note 2

[5] AIR 1993 Ker 42

https://lawlex.org/case-summary/case-summary-indian-young-lawyers-association-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-ors/26497 3/4
9/12/22, 6:01 PM Case Summary: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. - LawLex.Org
[6] Sabrimala Temple Entry, SUPREME COURT OBSERVER, (Sept 18, 2018), https://www.scobserver.in/court-
case/sabrimala-temple-entry-case/plain-english-summary-of-judgment-ee5ae148-9597-479f-84d7-
35d398ed5e68

Subscribe to Latest Posts !

Your Name Enter Your Email ID Here.. Sign Up

 PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE 

IDEX Legal Awards Night successfully Case Summary: Foundation of Media

concluded! Check out the Winners! Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir, 2020

You must log in to post a comment.

Terms & Conditions · Privacy Policy · Our Team · Work With Us · Support Us · Join CAP · Internships · Advert
Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. For collaborations contact [email protected]

https://lawlex.org/case-summary/case-summary-indian-young-lawyers-association-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-ors/26497 4/4