Indian young Lawyers association & others v. The state of Kerala & others (2018)

The Sabarimala temple, located in Kerala's Western Ghats, is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, a deity worshiped primarily by men who fast for 41 days prior to visiting the temple. Women of menstruating age (10-50 years) were traditionally barred from entering the temple, as Lord Ayyappa is believed to be a celibate deity. The practice of excluding women from temples was part of a larger cultural belief system that linked menstruation to impurity, a view that has persisted in many parts of Indian society.

This custom has been opposed numerous times and is considered gender discrimination; however, devotees view it as a matter of conviction. The restrictions and their source are determined by the temple divinity, Swami Ayyappa, who is a 'Naishtika Brahmachari' (celibate), and thus a symbol of purity that menstruating women should not ignore or violate. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 prohibits women from entering the Sabarimala temple grounds.

Name of the case: Indian young Lawyers association & others v. The state of Kerala & others.
Citation: AIRONLINE 2018 SC 243
Name of the court: Honorable Supreme court of India
Honorable Bench: Dipak Misra, Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice R F Nariman, Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra.
Judgment passed on: 28th sept 2018

Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore
The prohibition of women was first challenged at the Kerala High Court. In 1991, court held that the exclusion was constitutional and legitimized because it was a long-standing custom. The Kerala High Court's division bench ruled in Favour of the plaintiffs, stating that the limitations had existed since time immemorial and that the Travancore Board's prohibition did not violate the Indian Constitution or the relevant Kerala Law of 1965. The practice did not violate or ignore women devotees' rights to equality and freedom of worship.[1]

In 2006, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, challenging the temple’s practice on the grounds that it violated the constitutional rights of women, particularly Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) Article 17 (Abolition of untouchability) and 25 (Freedom of Religion).

Summary of facts In Kerala, there is a Hindu temple dedicated to Ayyappan known as the Sabarimala Shrine. It is a temple located in Sabarimala, Kerala's 'Pathanamthitta' district, within the Periyar Tiger Reserve. The Sabarimala shrine, one of Kerala's most famous temples, barred women (of menstruating age) from entering. Several women attempted to enter the Temple but were prevented due to threats of physical assault. A group of five female lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the Kerala High Court, which upheld the centuries-old restriction and ruled that only the "Tantrik (Priest)" had the authority to decide on traditions.

Issue raised:

1. Does the restriction on menstruating women's entry in the Sabarimala Temple contravene the Right to Equality and the Right against discrimination and the abolition of untouchability?
2. Whether the Sabarimala Temple has a denominational character?
3. Are Lord Ayyappa's devotees considered a separate religious denomination with the right to administer their own religious affairs?

Arguments by parties on the issue:

• Petitioner argument: The petitioners' arguments in favour of women's entry were that menstruation is not impure and that women should be granted equal rights to enter the Sabarimala Temple. A criticism claims that we cannot consider women impure based on menstruation, which is gender discrimination. This practice also violates:
• Article 14: Equality before Law of the Indian Constitution, as discrimination against women based on their age is not reasonable.
• Article 15: Addresses "prohibition on the basis of religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth." This practice violates Article 15 because the discrimination to enter the temple was based on 'sex'.
• Article 25: Addresses "freedom of conscience and the free profession, propagation, and practice of religion." This practice violates Article 25 by preventing women from freely practicing their religion.
• Article 26: Addresses the "freedom to manage religious affairs." This practice clearly violates the provisions of Article 26.
• Respondent arguments: Respondent's arguments against women's entry: Such religious practices are not very old, as it is a tradition to respect the God/Goddess of the Temple. Men are also not permitted to enter and worship at certain temples, such as the Bramha temple in Pushkar.

There is no violation of Articles 15, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution because the restriction only applies to women of a specific age group and not women as a whole. If the practice of restricting women's entry is limited to women as a class, it will only violate the aforementioned Articles of the Indian Constitution.

The provisions of the Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Act, 1965, also support this restriction.

Judgement of the case:
On September 28, 2018, a 5-judge Supreme Court bench ruled on the Sabarimala Temple case. In a 4:1 decision, the majority declared the temple's practice of prohibiting women to be unconstitutional, claiming that it violated the fundamental right to religious freedom guaranteed by Article 25(1).

The Court presented four decisions from Chief Justice Misra, Justice Nariman, Justice Chandrachud, and Justice Malhotra. Justices Nariman and Chandrachud agreed with Chief Justice Misra's position. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented from the majority opinion.

Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting opinion:
Justice Indu Malhotra issued a dissenting opinion. She maintained that the Sabarimala Temple meets the criteria for being considered a separate religious denomination. She contended that constitutional morality in a secular state like India necessitates the 'harmonization' of numerous competing claims to fundamental rights.

She ruled that the Sabarimala Temple is protected under Article 26(b) to deal with its internal affairs and is not subject to the social reform mandate under Article 25(2)(b), which only applies to Hindu denominations, and that the Court must consider a religious denomination's right to deal with its internal affairs, regardless of whether its practices are rational or reasonable.

It should be noted that Article 26, denominational freedom of religion, is subject to 'public order, morality, and health'. According to Justice Malhotra, 'morality' (constitutional morality) must be viewed in light of India's pluralistic society. She stated that the state must respect the freedom of individuals and orders to practice their religion.

According to Justice Indu Malhotra, the right to equality clashed with the right to worship of devotees of Lord Ayyappa and the god of the Sabarimala temple; additionally, the doctrine of equality cannot abrogate the fundamental right to worship guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution. The issues raised in this case have serious and unprecedented ramifications for various religions practiced across the country. which ended up being valid as the nine-judge bench was constituted.

Ratio decidendi:
'Ratio decidendi’ 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’t be subjected to Gender Discrimination.

Obiter dictum:
'Obiter dictum' refers to a judge's expression of opinion in court or in a written judgment that is not essential to the decision and thus not legally binding as a precedent.
In this case, the court ruled as follows:

"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’t be subjected to Gender Discrimination"

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India stated in his decision that religion is a way of life linked to an individual's dignity, and patriarchal practices based on the exclusion of one gender in Favour of another could not be allowed to infringe on the fundamental freedom to practice and profess one's religion.

Conclusion:
The Sabarimala judgment documents the conflict between religious beliefs and practices and the concept of equality for all citizens. The Sabarimala decision is unique in its boldness and empathy. There are various notions of morality, customs, and religions, but the Supreme Court used the case to highlight the highest notion of morality, Constitutional Morality. In this 21st-century era, where we talk about development, growth, prosperity, global leadership, and world power, we are still bound by the chains of our deep-rooted conservative ideologies of certain customs and beliefs, causing us to fail as a society and a nation.

Women in society face gender and sex discrimination, and they are still considered submissive to men as a result of the general public's patriarchal mindset. Feminist movements have come a long way in ensuring and providing women's rights, but there is still much work to be done. Religion is a sensitive topic to discuss in India because of its diverse population and culture.

The Supreme Court's decision resolved the conflict between fundamental rights and traditions. Traditions have always been an important and essential part of our society, and they are one of the most well-known aspects of the country's identity, However, traditions that undermine the fundamental essence of the constitution and the rights of a specific class of people in society as a result of natural biological processes must be challenged. The Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights to all citizens, two of which are the right to equality and the right to religion.

The Supreme Court's decision to lift the ban on women entering the Sabarimala temple once again established the supremacy of the Constitution over all other considerations while also ensuring that women's rights are not violated as a result of long-standing customs and traditions.

Reference:

1. Sabarimala Temple and the Celibacy Tradition, Journal of Religious Studies, 2020.
2. Mahendran v. the Secretary Travancore AIR (1993) KERALA 42.
3. The 1991 Kerala High Court Ruling on Sabarimala, Kerala Law Reports, 1991.
4. The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala AIRONLINE (2018) SC.
5. The Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 25.

Also Read:

• Summary of Sabarimala Temple Case
• Sabarimala Temple Entry: A quest for Equality
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v/s The State Of Kerela: Sabarimala Temple Case
• Brief Analysis Of Sabarimala Temple Case Indian Young Lawyers Association v/s Kerala
• A Constitutional Analysis Of The Denial Of Women In Religious Shrines: The Sabarimala Judgment Analysis