Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006
Author: Riti Sandeep Kitawat, student of D.M. Harish School of Law
Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of India exercised its original jurisdiction under Article 32 to hear the Sabarimala case (2018) as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), addressing constitutional questions on fundamental rights, religious freedom, and gender equality.
Quorum:5 Judge Bench
Citation: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1
Petitioners: Indian Young Lawyers Association, Dr. Laxmi Shastri, Prerna Kumara, Alka Sharma, Sudha Pal
Respondents: State of Kerala, Travancore Devaswom Board, Chief Thantri, Nair Service Society and others.
TO THE POINT
Introduction
The Sabarimala Temple is a revered Hindu shrine devoted to Lord Ayyappa situated in Kerala’s Pathanamthitta District amidst the Periyar Tiger Reserve. Since Lord Ayyappa is regarded as an eternal celibate, devotees are required to observe a 41-day period of penance before visiting the temple.
As a long-standing custom, women between the ages of 10 and 50 years were prohibited from entering the temple. The restriction was based on the belief that the presence of women of menstruating age would affect Lord Ayyappa’s vow of celibacy.
In S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board (1991), the Kerala High Court upheld the restriction. Subsequently, the matter reached the Supreme Court through a writ petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association under Article 32 of the Constitution.
On 28 September 2018, by a majority of 4:1, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition on the entry of women was unconstitutional.
Current Status
As of March 2025, the issue remains unresolved. Although the 2018 judgment permitting women of all ages to enter the temple continues to operate, several review petitions were filed. In 2019, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.
The issue has evolved into a broader constitutional debate concerning the balance between religious freedom, constitutional morality, gender equality, and judicial intervention in matters of faith.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Issues
- Preventing women’s entry into the temple with an irrational and obsolete notion of “purity” offends the equality clauses in the Constitution.
- Whether the practice of restricting females is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 17?
- Whether this religious practice infringes Article 25 of the Constitution?
- Whether the Ayyappa Temple constitutes a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution?
- Whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 permits a religious denomination to prohibit entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age?
- Whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 is unconstitutional?
- Whether constitutional morality should prevail over religious customs and practices?
Ratio Decidendi
The Court, by a majority of 4:1, held that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala Temple violated Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution.
The majority comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud concluded that Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act and Rules was unconstitutional.
Justice Indu Malhotra dissented and held that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in matters involving deep religious sentiments and practices.
Obiter Dictum
“Devotion cannot be subjected to Gender Discrimination.”
Chief Justice Dipak Misra observed that patriarchal practices excluding one gender cannot violate the fundamental right to practice and profess religion because religion is closely connected to dignity.
Important Legal Concepts Used
- Constitutional Morality
- Fundamental Rights
- Equality Before Law
- Gender Justice
- Religious Freedom
- Religious Denomination
- Essential Religious Practices
- Judicial Review
- Locus Standi
- Constitutional Remedies
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
- Freedom of Religion
- Abolition of Untouchability
- Constitutional Interpretation
THE PROOF
Facts of the Case
The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, who is worshipped as a celibate deity.
According to an ancient custom, women between the ages of 10 and 50 years were not permitted to enter the temple. The restriction was based on the belief that the presence of women of menstruating age would violate Lord Ayyappa’s celibate nature.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the prohibition.
The petitioners contended that:
- The restriction violated Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
- Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 was unconstitutional.
- Menstruation is a natural biological process and cannot be a ground for exclusion.
The respondents contended that:
State of Kerala
- Religious denominations enjoy protection under Article 26.
- Rule 3(b) protected the custom followed at Sabarimala.
- Religious practices protected under Articles 25 and 26 cannot be challenged merely because they appear discriminatory.
Travancore Devaswom Board
- The exclusion was based on religious traditions and not gender discrimination.
- The restriction was connected to the deity’s celibacy.
- The 41-day penance was difficult for women of menstruating age.
Chief Thantri
- Lord Ayyappa’s celibacy deserved protection.
- The restriction had existed for centuries.
- The practice formed part of accepted religious customs.
Nair Service Society
- The restriction was necessary to preserve the appearance of celibacy.
- Hinduism is inclusive and non-discriminatory.
- The practice did not violate women’s rights.
Other Devotees and Religious Groups
- The temple possessed autonomy under Articles 25 and 26.
- The deity possessed legal rights.
- Lord Ayyappa’s celibate status deserved constitutional protection.
ABSTRACT
The Sabarimala case represents one of the most significant constitutional conflicts between religious traditions and fundamental rights in India.
The dispute concerned the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Temple. The petitioners challenged the practice as discriminatory and violative of constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom.
The Supreme Court examined whether the restriction constituted an essential religious practice and whether constitutional morality could override traditional religious customs.
By a majority of 4:1, the Court held that the practice violated Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 25 of the Constitution and declared Rule 3(b) unconstitutional.
Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, holding that courts should not ordinarily interfere with religious beliefs and practices.
The judgment became a landmark in advancing gender justice and constitutional morality, while simultaneously generating widespread public debate and legal challenges.
CASE LAWS
1. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1
The Supreme Court declared the restriction on women’s entry into Sabarimala Temple unconstitutional by a 4:1 majority.
2. S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board (1991)
The Kerala High Court upheld the ban on women between 10 and 50 years of age entering Sabarimala Temple.
3. Ritu Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam (2015)
Relied upon by the respondents to argue that practices protected under Articles 25 and 26 cannot ordinarily be challenged through other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The Sabarimala case is a landmark judgment highlighting the tension between constitutional values and religious traditions.
The Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment upheld gender justice by allowing women of all ages to enter the temple and striking down Rule 3(b) as unconstitutional.
The decision emphasized that religious practices cannot be used as a basis for discrimination against women and reinforced the principles of equality, dignity and constitutional morality.
At the same time, the case generated substantial public opposition and remains under review before a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
The controversy continues to shape discussions concerning the scope of religious freedom, judicial intervention in religious matters, and the evolving relationship between faith and constitutional rights in India.
FAQ
Q1. Preventing women’s entry into the temple with an irrational and obsolete notion of “purity” offends which constitutional provisions?
Answer: The equality clauses contained in the Constitution.
Q2. Whether the practice of restricting females is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 17?
Answer: This was one of the principal constitutional issues before the Court.
Q3. Whether this religious practice infringes Article 25 of the Constitution?
Answer: The Court examined whether the restriction violated the right to freely profess and practice religion.
Q4. Whether the Ayyappa Temple constitutes a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution?
Answer: The Court considered whether Sabarimala qualified as a religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26.
Q5. Whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 permits prohibition of women between 10 and 50 years of age?
Answer: The validity and scope of Rule 3 were challenged before the Supreme Court.
Q6. Whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 is unconstitutional?
Answer: The Supreme Court held Rule 3(b) unconstitutional by a majority of 4:1.
Q7. Whether constitutional morality should prevail over religious customs and practices?
Answer: The majority held that constitutional morality must prevail when religious practices violate fundamental rights. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented on this issue.
