top of page
Search
Sainoor Nayab
Aug 47 min read

Indian Young Lawyers Association VS State of Kerala A Landmark case of Gender Equality

Author: Sainoor Nayab, Law Student , Galgotias university

Introduction

The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is important because it dealt with whether women of menstruating age could enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. Traditionally, they were not allowed because of beliefs about the temple's deity, Lord Ayyappa. The Supreme Court had to decide if this practice was against women's equality rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

This article explores the background, issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, the judicial reasoning, and the far-reaching implications of the Supreme Court's verdict in this pivotal case. The petitioners argued it was discriminatory, while the temple board said it was essential for religious reasons. The court, by a majority, ruled in 2018 that banning women was unfair and against the Constitution.

Back ground

The Sabarimala case became a focal point in the struggle for gender equality and religious freedoms in India's legal and societal landscape.

The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala has a long-standing tradition that excludes women aged 10 to 50 from entering its premises. This tradition stems from the belief that the deity of the temple, Lord Ayyappa, is celibate, and the presence of menstruating women would compromise the temple's sanctity. This practice, rooted in cultural and religious customs, has been enforced for centuries, despite ongoing challenges from activists and women's rights groups.

These groups argue that barring women from entering the temple violates their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Over the years, there have been protests and legal battles to overturn this restriction, highlighting the clash between religious practices and constitutional rights in India. The exclusion of women was first challenged at the Kerala High Court. In 1991, the Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran v The Secretary, Travancore[1] held that the exclusion was constitutional and justified, as it was a long-standing custom. The practice did not violate women devotees’ Rights to Equality and Freedom of worship. This decision was significant as it upheld gender equality over religious customs, impacting how such issues are handled in India's legal system and society.

Issues raised [2]

1.      Whether the exclusion of women based on a unique biological factor is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 15 and 17 and is not protected by morality under Articles 25 of the Indian constitution?

2.      Whether the practice of excluding such women constituted an “essential religious practice” under Article 25 and whether a religious institution could assert a claim in that regard to managing its own affairs in religious matters?

3.      Whether the Ayyappa Temple is a religious denomination under Art 26 of the Indian constitution?

4.      Whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules is unconstitutional to prohibit women aged 10 to 50 years from entering the temple?

 

Arguments

Ø  Petitioners argument

1. Article 14 - Right to Equality: The practice of banning women aged 10-50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple was considered arbitrary under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. This article ensures that all citizens are treated equally under the law, and creating a separate and excluded class of women based solely on their age was not justified.

2. Article 15 - Prohibition of Discrimination: Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The practice at Sabarimala Temple, which barred women of menstruating age from entering, was seen as a clear case of discrimination solely based on their biological sex. Moreover, the temple is considered a public place under Article 15(2)(b), where such discrimination is expressly prohibited.

3. Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act: Section 3 and Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act, 1956, were found to conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Indian Constitution. These provisions attempted to justify the exclusion of women from temples based on custom and usage, which the court found to be unconstitutional.

4. Article 17 - Abolition of Untouchability: Article 17 mandates the abolition of practices of untouchability. The exclusion of women from Sabarimala Temple during their menstruating years was seen as stigmatizing and implying that menstruation is impure, which goes against the spirit of this constitutional provision.

5. Article 25 - Freedom of Religion: Article 25 protects the freedom of individuals to practice and profess their religion. The court held that women have the constitutional right to enter temples as devotees and participate in worship. This right cannot be restricted by the state under the guise of social reform or welfare.

6.Article 26 - Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs: Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to manage their religious affairs. However, the court noted that Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala did not constitute a separate religious denomination. Even if it did, the practice of excluding women of menstruating age was not considered an essential religious practice that could be protected under this provision.

 

 

Respondents argument

1.The respondents argued that excluding women from the temple does not violate Article 15 because it applies only to a specific group within society, not the entire female population. They pointed out that all devotees at Sabarimala are called Ayyappans, and eligible female devotees are referred to as Malikapurams.

2.Regarding Rule 3(b), they contended it was not unconstitutional because it only restricted entry for women of a particular age group and for specific reasons. They also noted that women were permitted to enter other temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.

3.In response to Article 17, which prohibits untouchability based on caste, the respondents argued that no such caste-based discrimination occurs at the Sabarimala Temple. They emphasized that Article 17 aims to eradicate practices related to caste, not those related to gender.

4.In Regards to Article 25(2)(b), which prevents discrimination based on caste in religious matters, the respondents argued that this provision should not be interpreted to undermine customs integral to religion. They asserted that customs like those at Sabarimala are essential aspects of religious practice and should be respected.

5.The respondents also cited a previous ruling by the Kerala High Court in Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, which recognized Sabarimala as a religious denomination. They argued that as a religious denomination, Sabarimala is entitled to manage its own affairs under Article 26 of the Constitution, without interference from reform provisions under Article 25.

Ratio

4:1

Justice Dipak Misra, CJI

Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

Justice R.F. Nariman

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Justice Indu Malhotra (Dissenting opinion)

 

Judgement

The Supreme Court's decision was a significant move towards gender equality in religious practices. By overturning the ban on women's entry to Sabarimala Temple, the court upheld constitutional values of equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty, asserting that customs and traditions must align with these principles.The court stated this practice violated fundamental rights like equality, liberty, and freedom of religion under Articles 14, 15, 17, 19(1), 21, and 25(1) of the Constitution.

Former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra emphasized that any rules demeaning women's dignity would be struck down under Articles 14 and 15. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud likened the exclusion of women based on menstruation to untouchability, saying it stigmatizes individuals and cannot be justified under constitutional values.The court clarified that under Article 25, the term "morality" refers to constitutional morality, not societal norms. It stressed that all individuals have the right to practice their religion freely, irrespective of gender. The restriction on women's entry to Sabarimala Temple, it argued, infringed upon their right to visit a public place of worship and express devotion to Lord Ayyappa.

The court also noted that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form a separate religious denomination under Article 26. It found no scriptural evidence supporting the ban on women, thus rejecting the notion that it was an essential religious practice. In response to Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules was deemed unconstitutional as it contradicted the rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. The court emphasized that these rules were intended to reform and make Hindu places accessible to all.

Dissenting opinion

Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone dissenting judge, upheld the religious practices and customs associated with the Sabarimala Temple, arguing that courts should not interfere with matters of religion unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles. She underscored the importance of religious autonomy and diversity in a pluralistic society like India.

Impact and reaction

The Supreme Court's decision to permit women of menstruating age to enter Sabarimala Temple had immediate and widespread consequences in India. Initially, despite the Kerala government's commitment to enforce the ruling, protests from devotees and conservative Hindu groups obstructed women from entering. The breakthrough came in January 2019 when two women entered under police protection, marking a historic moment for women's rights in religious spaces nationally. Activists viewed this as a precedent for access to other temples, while critics argued it constituted judicial overreach. This dichotomy underscores India's ongoing struggle to reconcile religious traditions with constitutional rights.

 

The verdict evoked strong reactions across various sectors. Hindu groups such as the RSS criticized it as an attack on tradition, contrasting with figures like Rahul Gandhi, who accepted the verdict while urging respect for devotees' sentiments. Shashi Tharoor welcomed the judgment, exposing political divisions. Religious leaders, including the Sabarimala temple's head priest and the Pandalam royal family, voiced disappointment, emphasizing the need to honor devotees' beliefs. Meanwhile, spiritual leaders like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar opposed the verdict, whereas Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev supported it, reflecting broader dissent within religious circles. Legally, the ruling faced multiple challenges through over 50 review petitions, centered on issues like the court's jurisdiction over religious practices, culminating in the Supreme Court's 2020 dismissal of these petitions, affirming its impact on societal norms and sparking debates on gender equality versus religious customs.

Conclusion

The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case represents a watershed moment in the struggle for gender equality and the protection of fundamental rights in India. By striking down the discriminatory practice at the Sabarimala Temple, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination. The judgment not only addressed a specific religious practice but also set a precedent for future cases involving the clash between religious customs and individual rights, emphasizing that constitutional morality must prevail over religious practices that perpetuate discrimination.

 

Sources

3.      India kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163639357/ ( June 25, 2024)

 


[1] AIR 1993 Ker 42

 

0 comments

Comments

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page