The Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala case is a landmark judgment that lifted the centuries-old ban on women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from entering the Sabarimala Temple, a Hindu shrine in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down this discriminatory practice was hailed as a progressive step towards gender equality, reinforcing the notion that religious customs must conform to constitutional values of justice, equality, and non-discrimination.

Background

The Sabarimala Temple is one of the most revered pilgrimage sites for Hindus, attracting millions of devotees each year. According to the temple’s tradition, women of menstruating age were barred from entering the temple as it was believed that Lord Ayyappa, the presiding deity, was a celibate deity. The ban was justified by temple authorities as a way to preserve the deity’s celibate nature, and it was codified in the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.

In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of this practice, arguing that it violated women’s fundamental rights under the Constitution of India, including the rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), religious freedom (Article 25), and dignity (Article 21). The petitioners contended that the ban reinforced regressive gender stereotypes and infringed upon women’s right to practice their religion.

Key Legal Issues

• Constitutionality of Religious Practices: Could the temple’s practice of excluding women of menstruating age be justified under the right to freedom of religion (Article 25), or did it violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination?
• Gender Discrimination: Did the temple’s custom amount to gender-based discrimination under Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth?
• Essential Religious Practices: Was the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala Temple an essential religious practice of Hinduism, and if so, could it be protected under the right to freedom of religion?
• Balance Between Religious Freedom and Constitutional Morality: To what extent could religious customs be subjected to judicial scrutiny when they appeared to contradict constitutional principles of equality and justice?

The Judgment

On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, delivered a 4-1 majority judgment in favour of the petitioners, striking down the ban on women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple. The Court held that the exclusion of women based on their menstruating status was unconstitutional and violated their fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and religious freedom.

Key Aspects of the Judgment:

1. Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court held that the practice of excluding women was a clear case of gender-based discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Justice Misra, in his judgment, emphasized that the Constitution guarantees equality to all individuals, and any form of discrimination based on gender was impermissible.

2. Essential Religious Practices Doctrine: The Court rejected the argument that the exclusion of women was an essential religious practice. It held that practices that contravene fundamental rights could not be shielded under the guise of religion. Justice Nariman, in his concurring opinion, observed that practices that perpetuate discrimination must be tested against the values of constitutional morality, and if they fail to uphold these values, they must be struck down.

3. Religious Freedom: While Article 25 guarantees individuals the right to freely practice their religion, the Court made it clear that this right is subject to public order, morality, and health. The judgment emphasized that religious freedom could not be used to justify practices that violate basic human rights and the principles of equality and dignity.

4. Intersection of Constitutional Morality and Religious Customs: The judgment underscored the concept of constitutional morality, which requires that all customs and practices, including those related to religion, be consistent with the fundamental values of the Constitution. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate opinion, emphasized that patriarchy in religion could not be allowed to undermine the dignity of women and that any custom that was inconsistent with the constitutional ethos of equality must be struck down.

5. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole woman on the Bench, delivered a dissenting opinion. She argued that matters of faith should not be subjected to judicial review and that courts should not interfere with religious practices unless they posed a threat to public order or were grossly unconstitutional. Justice Malhotra’s dissent focused on the need to respect the autonomy of religious denominations in managing their affairs.

Significance

The Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala or Sabarimala judgment is significant for several reasons:

• Affirmation of Gender Equality: The judgment was a resounding affirmation of the principle that gender equality is a fundamental right, and no religious practice could justify discrimination based on gender. By opening the doors of the Sabarimala Temple to women of all ages, the Court reinforced the notion that women must be treated as equal citizens in all aspects of life, including religion.
• Balance Between Religious Freedom and Constitutional Morality: The judgment set an important precedent for future cases involving conflicts between religious customs and constitutional rights. It established that while religious freedom is an important right, it is not absolute and must yield to constitutional principles such as equality and non-discrimination.
• Empowerment of Women: The ruling empowered women by recognizing their right to participate fully in religious life, challenging centuries-old patriarchal traditions that sought to exclude them. It was a step toward breaking down the barriers that women face in religious and social institutions.
• Challenge to Patriarchy: By striking down the ban on women’s entry, the judgment challenged the deep-rooted patriarchal structures that have long dictated the role of women in Indian society, particularly in religious spaces. The ruling was seen as a victory for women’s rights activists who had long campaigned for equal access to places of worship.

Impact

While the Supreme Court’s judgment was a victory for gender equality and religious freedom, it also sparked significant social and legal challenges:

• Public Backlash: The judgment was met with strong opposition from conservative religious groups, devotees, and political parties. Many argued that the Court had interfered with age-old religious customs and that the entry of women into the temple would desecrate its sanctity. Protests erupted in Kerala, with many opposing the implementation of the ruling.
• Review Petitions and Legal Challenges: In the wake of the judgment, several review petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the decision on the grounds that it interfered with religious beliefs. In 2019, a larger bench of the Supreme Court referred the case to a seven-judge bench, indicating that the debate over religious freedom and gender equality was far from over.
• Social Divide: The ruling exposed a deep social divide between progressive forces advocating for gender equality and conservative groups seeking to preserve religious traditions. The case remains emblematic of the broader tension between modern constitutional values and traditional religious practices in India.
• Judicial Precedent: Despite the controversy, the judgment set a crucial legal precedent for future cases involving gender discrimination in religious institutions. It reinforced the idea that constitutional morality should guide the interpretation of laws and customs, even when they pertain to religion.

Conclusion

The Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018) judgment is a landmark in India’s journey toward gender equality and the fight against discrimination. It affirmed the right of women to enter the Sabarimala Temple, challenging patriarchal norms that had long restricted their access to religious spaces. The ruling reinforced the principle that all individuals, regardless of gender, are entitled to equality and dignity under the Constitution.

While the ruling has faced significant opposition and legal challenges, it remains a symbol of India’s evolving commitment to ensuring that constitutional rights take precedence over discriminatory practices, even in the realm of religion. The Sabarimala case continues to shape the discourse on religious freedom, gender justice, and the role of the judiciary in balancing tradition with the values of a modern democratic society.

Also Read: Indira Sawhney vs Union of India (1992): A Landmark in Indian Reservation Law