Revision Notes Niharika

Legal Methods
06-10-2021 (Page 1 of 8) www.manupatra.com GNLU user

CASE NO. 7
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.
V.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(2019 11 SCC 1)
RESTRICTION OF WOMEN IN SABRIMALA TEMPLE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ABSTRACT
located in the State of Kerala. Women have experienced a lot of struggle for the protection of
their rights and freedom. The Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala region in Kerala has been
controversial for provision of restricting women of menstruating age (10-15 years of age) to
enter into Sabarimala Temple, Kerala. In the following case, there are many issues being
raised for which it was argued by petitioners that the provisions related to the restriction of
women entry in Temple are against the values of the Constitution of India, because it violates
Article 14, 15, 17, 25, 26 of the Indian Constitution.
Later after the procedure of the case, the Supreme Court held that women of all age groups
shall enter the Sabarimala Shrine Temple situated in Kerala. As everyone has a right to
worship and it is the constitutional and fundamental right of every citizen of India, provided
under Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
There are various differences in Constitutional ideals and social reality in the society. There
is a wide gap between provisions given in the Indian Constitution and the on-ground reality
of society and individuals. In the following case, the Supreme Court has bridged the gap
between both.
1. PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
Case No : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 OF 2006

Jurisdiction : Supreme Court of India
Case Filed On : October 2006
43
Case Decided On : September 28, 2018
Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R.F. Nariman,
Judges : Justice D. Y. Chandrachud , Justice A M Khanwilkar,

Justice Indu Malhotra
Legal Provisions Involved : Constitution of India, Article 15, 25 and 26

Kumar Yuvraj,
Case Summary Prepared By :
Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
Sabrimala Temple, devoted to Lord Ayyappa, is a temple of great value and importance. The
temple is situated over one of the eighteen mountains stood over the Western Ghats known as
Sannidhanam. situated in the district of Pathanamthitta in Kerala.
The faithful believe that Lord Ayyappa's powers derive from his asceticism, in particular
from his being celibate. Women have not been allowed to be a part of this pilgrimage due to
their physiological features, considering them weak and unfit for the arduous journey.
Women are also considered to be impure while menstruating according to Hindu traditions
and therefore the temple authorities have placed is a temple located at Sabarimala inside the
putting restrictions on the entry
of women between the ages 10 and 50 to preserve the temple's sanctity
Several women tried to enter the Temple but could not because of threats of physical assault
against them.
A group of five women lawyers had moved the Apex Court challenging the decision of the
Kerala High Court which upheld the centuries-old restriction.
3. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
I. Whether the practice based on biological factors is exclusive only for the female
gender amounts to discrimination'? Does this practice violate the core of Articles14,
15, and 17?
II. Whether the Sabrimala Temple has a denominational character?
44
III. Whether Rule 3 of Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship rules allows a 'religious
denomination' to ban the entry of women. Does these differences violate Article 14
and 15(3) of the Constitution of India by restricting entry on grounds of sex?
IV. Whether the practice constitutes an 'essential religious practice' under Article 25?
Whether a religious institution can assert its claim to do so under the right to manage
its own affairs in the matter of religion?
4. LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE
The legal aspects involved in the case are as follows-

Article 15-
does involve violation of Article 15 as discrimination to
Article 25-
Article 26- It
The provisions under Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Act, 1965 which supports
re illegal, as it violates Article 14, 15, 25 and 26 of
Indian Constitution.
But the Respondent argued and stated that :

1. There is no violation of Article 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution as the
restriction is only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a
class. On the basis of the fact that this practice, of restriction to the entry of women is
made for women as a class, then only it will violate the above-mentioned Articles of
the Indian Constitution.
2. The provisions in Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Act, 1965 also support this
restriction.
5. JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF
September 28, 2018 was the day when the Court delivered its verdict on the case by 4:1
division, which proved that the restriction of women in Sabarimala Temple is
unconstitutional. It said that this restriction violated the fundamental rights of the women on
equality, liberty and freedom of religion, Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21 and 25(1) of the Indian
45
Constitution. It struck down clause 3(b) of the Kerala State Hindu Places of Public Worship
Act as unconstitutional. Clause 3(b) allowed Hindu denominations to exclude women in
further linked, to the dignity of a person and patriarchal practices based on the exclusion of
should not be allowed to infringe upon the free
6. COMMENTARY
The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court who decided upon the matter and gave the
verdict reasoned varied things and had
Malhotra had an opposite opinion regarding the matter. Various arguments were brought
before the Supreme Court from the petitioners as well the respondents. The petitioners
contended that this restrictive practice by the temple authorities of not allowing women to
enter the temple is clearly violate of their fundamental rights given by the Constitution of
India as well discriminatory to the concerned.
The Constitution of India claims to 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/her choice. Moreover, Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits the
state from discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave their verdict on the majority of 4:1.
on the basis of
ailments like menstruation, is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Both men and woman
have the right to worship bestowed on them and the practice by the temple authorities was
discriminatory and violate of the Indian Constitution.
46
Justice Chandrachud had views 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 conta
built up around traditional beliefs in the impurity of menstruating women.
sentiments should not be ordinarily be entertained by the Court. The Court shall not interrupt
in this matter unless there is any resentful person from that section or even religion. The
notion of rationality should not be seen in religious matters. She also held that shrine and the
deity are protected by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
7. IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED
Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University (1989 AIR 903)

Shayra Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association (1989 2 SCC 145)
47

Revision Notes Niharika

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revision Notes Niharika

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revision Notes Niharika

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Methods

06-10-2021 (Page 1 of 8) www.manupatra.com GNLU user

1. PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

Case No : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 OF 2006

Judges : Justice D. Y. Chandrachud , Justice A M Khanwilkar,

Legal Provisions Involved : Constitution of India, Article 15, 25 and 26

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

4. LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

The legal aspects involved in the case are as follows-

But the Respondent argued and stated that :

7. IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED

Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University (1989 AIR 903)

You might also like