NAME :Sandra Jasi

SUBJECT CODE :Law 109

ROLE NUMBER : RL2302B60

REG NO :12300043

COURSE TOPIC :Case based assignment

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State Of Kerala 2018

Introduction

Women in our society have always struggled for equal status and representation in public spaces. But,
the situation is changing now and various reforms have come through the judgements of the Courts. Like
in Shah Bano case, the Supreme Court has protected the rights of Muslim women from the practice of
triple talaq law . Now, the case of ‘Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala involved
women’s struggle for getting the entry in Sabarimala Shrine Temple located in the State of Kerala if they
are in their periods . Women have done a lot of struggle for the protection of their rights. In this case,
there were many issues raised in which it was argued by petitioners that provisions related to the
restriction of women entry in Temple are unconstitutional as it violates Article 14, 15, 17, 25, 26 of the
Indian Constitution.

Procedural history:

The case was filed as a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India in 2006. The court
initially referred the matter to a three-judge bench, which heard the case in 2016 and 2017. The bench,
however, referred the case to a larger constitutional bench of five judges, considering the importance
and complexity of the issues involved. The constitutional bench heard the case in 2018 and delivered its
judgment on September 28, 2018.

Facts of the case:

The Sabarimala temple is one of the most famous and ancient Hindu temples in India, located in the
Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. The temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa,
who is believed to be the son of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu (in his female form as Mohini). Lord Ayyappa
is also known as Naishtika Brahma Chari, which means a perpetual celibate. The temple follows a strict
code of conduct and rituals, which include a 41-day period of austerity and abstinence (vratham) for the
devotees before visiting the temple. The temple is open for worship only for a few days every month,
and for a longer period during the annual pilgrimage season of Mandala-Makaravilakku, which lasts from
November to January. The temple has a long-standing custom and tradition of prohibiting women of
menstruating age (10-50 years) from entering the temple premises, on the ground that they would
disturb the celibacy and austerity of Lord Ayyappa. This restriction was also given legal sanction by Rule
3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which stated that
“Women who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship shall not be
entitled to enter or offer worship in any place of public worship”. The rule was framed under Section 4 of
the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, which empowered the
state government to make rules for the regulation of entry of devotees into temples. The rule was
challenged by the petitioners as unconstitutional and discriminatory against women.

Law points :

: The case involved the interpretation and application of various constitutional provisions, such as:

Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons.

Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Article 17, which abolishes untouchability and its practice in any form.

Article 19, which grants the right to freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement
and profession to all citizens.

Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty of all persons.

Article 25, which guarantees the right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health, and other fundamental rights.

Article 26, which grants the right to every religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of
religion, subject to public order, morality and health.

Article 32, which empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Involved Arguments:

Arguments by the parties: The main arguments by the petitioners and the respondents are as follows:

Arguments by the petitioners:

The restriction of women from entering the Sabarimala temple is a violation of their fundamental rights
under Articles 14, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. It is based on the patriarchal and regressive
notion that women are impure and inferior to men, and that their presence would pollute the sanctity of
the temple. It is also based on the irrational and unscientific belief that menstruation is a taboo and a
curse, and that women who menstruate are unfit for worship. Such beliefs are contrary to the spirit of
the Hindu religion, which does not discriminate on the basis of gender, caste or creed, and which
celebrates the diversity and plurality of faiths and practices. The restriction also deprives women of their
dignity, autonomy and identity, and subjects them to stigma and humiliation. It also curtails their
freedom of expression, movement and profession, as they are denied the opportunity to participate in
the religious and cultural life of the society.

The restriction of women from entering the Sabarimala temple is not an essential religious practice,
protected by Article 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution. It is not based on any scriptural or doctrinal
authority, but on a mere custom and tradition, which can be changed and reformed over time. It is also
not based on the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa, as there is no evidence to show that he himself
imposed such a restriction, or that he is worshipped only as a celibate deity. There are many other
temples of Lord Ayyappa in Kerala and elsewhere, where women of all ages are allowed to enter and
worship. Moreover, the restriction is not uniformly followed by all the devotees of Lord Ayyappa, as
there are many women who have visited the Sabarimala temple in the past, either with or without the
knowledge of the temple authorities. The restriction is also not essential for the character and identity of
the Sabarimala temple, as it is not the only or the most distinctive feature of the temple. The temple is
known for its unique rituals, such as the 41-day vratham, the Makarajyothi, the Makaravilakku, the
Malikappuram Devi, the 18 steps, the irumudikettu, etc., which are open to all devotees, irrespective of
their gender, caste or creed.

The restriction of women from entering the Sabarimala temple is not protected by Rule 3(b) of the
Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, as the rule itself is ultra vires
and unconstitutional. The rule is beyond the scope and power of Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, which only authorises the state government to make
rules for the regulation of entry of devotees into temples, and not for the prohibition of entry of any
class of persons. The rule is also violative of the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, 17,
19, 21 and 25 of the Constitution, as it discriminates and excludes them from entering a place of public
worship on the ground of their sex. The rule is also contrary to the spirit and object of the Act, which is
to facilitate the entry of all classes and sections of Hindus into temples, and to remove any disability,
restriction or condition with respect to such entry.

Arguments by the respondents:

The restriction of women from entering the Sabarimala temple is not a violation of their fundamental
rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. It is based on the bona fide and
genuine belief of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa, who worship him as a Naishtika Brahmachari, a
perpetual celibate. It is also based on the custom and tradition of the temple, which has been followed
for centuries, and which forms part of the religious faith and practice of the devotees. It is not based on
any notion of impurity or inferiority of women, or any discrimination or exclusion of women on the
ground of their sex. It is based on the concept of purity and sanctity of the temple, and the celibacy and
austerity of the deity. It is also based on the voluntary and consensual choice of the women devotees,
who respect and accept the restriction as a mark of their devotion and sacrifice. The restriction does not
deprive women of their dignity, autonomy and identity, or subject them to stigma and humiliation. It also
does not curtail their freedom of expression, movement and profession, as they are free to visit and
worship in any other temple of Lord Ayyappa, or any other deity, without any restriction.

The restriction of women from entering the Sabarimala temple is an essential religious practice
protected by Article 25(1).
Ratio decidenti:

‘Ratio decidenti’ is the rule of law on which judicial decision is based. It is legally binding.

On 28th September 2018, the Court delivered its verdict in this case by 4:1 majority which held that the
restriction of women in Sabarimala Temple is unconstitutional. It held that the practice violated the
fundamental rights to equality, liberty and freedom of religion, Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21 and 25(1). It
struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act as unconstitutional. Rule 3(b)
allowed for Hindu denominations to exclude women from public places of worship, if the exclusion was
based on ‘custom’.

The Apex Court has allowed entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala Temple, and held that
“Devotion can not be subjected to Gender Discrimination.”

Obiter dicta :

‘Obiter dictum’ is a judge’s expression of opinion uttered in court or in a written judgement, but not
essential to the decision and therefore not legally binding as a precedent.

In this case, the Court ruled thus:

“We have no doubt in saying that such practice infringes the right of women to enter a temple and freely
practice Hindu religion”.

“Devotion can not be subjected to Gender Discrimination”.

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India stated in his Judgement that religion is a way of life linked to the dignity of
an individual and patriarchal practices based on the 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.

Social and legal impact:

. The case had significant social and legal implications for the rights of women, religious freedom, and
constitutional morality in India.

Some of the social impacts of the case are:

The case sparked a massive controversy and protests from various groups, especially the devotees of
Lord Ayyappa, the presiding deity of the temple, who believed that the entry of women would violate
the celibate nature of the god and the age-old traditions of the temple. The protesters blocked the roads
leading to the temple, attacked women journalists and activists who tried to enter the temple, and
clashed with the police and the supporters of the verdict. The protests also led to violence and political
unrest in Kerala, with several hartals (strikes) and clashes between the ruling and opposition parties.
The case also triggered a debate on the role of women in religion and society, and the need for gender
equality and justice. Many women, especially young and urban, welcomed the verdict as a progressive
and empowering step that challenged the patriarchal and discriminatory norms that restricted their
access to public spaces and religious institutions. They also asserted their right to worship and their
freedom of choice and expression. Some women also formed a human chain, called the “Women’s Wall”,
across Kerala to show their solidarity and support for the verdict. However, some women, especially
older and rural, opposed the verdict as an interference in their faith and culture, and a violation of their
religious sentiments and customs. They also claimed that they were happy with the status quo and did
not want to enter the temple.

The case also highlighted the diversity and complexity of the religious and cultural practices in India, and
the need for dialogue and reconciliation among different groups and communities. The case exposed the
tensions and conflicts between the constitutional values of secularism, equality, and justice, and the
religious values of faith, tradition, and devotion. The case also raised questions about the role of the
judiciary and the state in regulating and reforming the religious affairs and practices of different
communities, and the extent to which they can intervene in the matters of personal law and religious
freedom.

Some of the legal impacts of the case are:

The case established a new constitutional doctrine of “essential religious practices test”, which means
that the court can examine whether a particular practice is essential or integral to a religion, and
whether it can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom
of religion. The court held that the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala temple was not an essential
religious practice of Hinduism, and hence, it was not protected under Article 25. The court also held that
the right to freedom of religion is subject to other fundamental rights, such as the right to equality,
dignity, and non-discrimination, and that any practice that violates these rights cannot be justified on the
ground of religion.

The case also expanded the scope and interpretation of Article 17 of the Constitution, which prohibits
untouchability and its practice in any form. The court held that the notion of untouchability is not limited
to the caste system, but also includes any form of social exclusion and discrimination based on birth,
gender, or other grounds. The court also held that the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala temple
amounted to a form of untouchability, as it was based on the impurity and inferiority of women due to
their biological processes, and hence, it violated Article 17.

The case also invoked the concept of “constitutional morality”, which means that the constitutional
values and principles should prevail over the social and religious norms and practices that are contrary to
them. The court held that the constitutional morality requires the state and the society to respect and
protect the rights and dignity of all individuals, irrespective of their religion, gender, or other identities,
and to ensure that they are not subjected to any form of discrimination or oppression. The court also
held that the constitutional morality is superior to the popular morality or public opinion, and that the
court has the duty to uphold and enforce the constitutional morality, even if it Is unpopular or
controversial.