Author: Ayushi Raj, Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla
To the Point
The corner ruling in Indian Young attorneys Association v. State of Kerala (2018) serves as a monumental testament to the Indian bar’s unvarying commitment to uphold the principles of gender equivalency, denomination, and indigenous supremacy. In a decisive 41 maturity, the Supreme Court declared the archaic prohibition against women progressed 10 – 50 from entering the Sabarimala tabernacle as unconstitutional and discriminative. The judgment articulated that the freedom of religion, as reprised in Composition 25 of the Indian Constitution, does not extend to practices that infringe upon other abecedarian rights, particularly the rights to equivalency, on-discrimination, and quality. The Court poignantly emphasized that the prohibition was predicated in patriarchal interpretations of period as a source of contamination, lacking any essential base in the religious doctrine itself. Accordingly, this exclusionary practice was arbitrated as violating Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution, therefore establishing a significant precedent for the bar’s capacity to check and abate discriminative religious customs.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Supreme Court’s ruling involved rigorous engagement with crucial indigenous doctrines, especially the Essential Religious Practices Test, which evaluates whether a particular practice constitutes a thick part of a religion, earning protection under Article 25. likewise, the ruling invoked the doctrine of indigenous Morality, a normative paradigm that compels adherence to indigenous values similar as liberty, equivalency, and quality — indeed in conflict with traditional social practices. The judgment strictly anatomized papers 14(Right to Equality), 15(Prohibition of Demarcation grounded on coitus, Caste, etc.), 117(invalidation of Untouchability), and 225(Freedom of Religion), examining the delicate balance between individual rights and collaborative religious rights under Composition 26(b). The Court scanned whether the addicts of Lord Ayyappa qualified as a distinct religious denotation while addressing broader counteraccusations of public order, morality, and health as potentially maintainable restrictions under Composition 25(1). Other salient legal themes encompassed a progressive interpretation of untouchability, alongside affirming pluralism and denomination as foundational rudiments of Indian indigenous republic.
The Proof
The origin of this notable case can be traced back to a Public Interest Action (PIL) initiated by the Indian Young attorneys Association, along with other pleaders, in 2006. This solicitation queried Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, which authorized the Sabarimala tabernacle’s governing body to circumscribe entry for women of menstruating age (10 – 50 times). The tabernacle, which venerates Lord Ayyappa — a reality regarded as a Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate) — traditionally barred this demographic on grounds that their presence would disrupt the virgin oath taken by the deity. The repliers asserted that similar restrictions embodied an essential religious practice shielded by Article 25 and claimed that the tabernacle’s followers constituted a religious denotation with natural autonomy under Composition 26. The case was arbitrated by a five- judge Constitution Bench presided over by also Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
The Court strictly estimated whether the practice in disagreement good as an essential religious practice, examined the eventuality of the addicts to be viewed as a distinct denotation under Composition 26, and assessed whether the practice could repel indigenous scrutiny. The maturity opinion concluded that the prohibition was not an essential tenet of the faith, thereby devoid of indigenous protection. It further posited that natural realities, similar as period, cannot serve as valid grounds for the denial of rights. As a reaffirmation of indigenous morality, Rule 3(b) was struck down as inconsistent with the Constitution.
The Court decisively underlined that interpretations of abecedarian rights should be guided by indigenous morality rather than adherence to traditional moral constructs.
Abstract
The 2018 ruling in Indian Young attorneys Association v. State of Kerala marks a watershed moment in the annals of Indian indigenous justice, seeking to attune the tenets of religious freedom with the imperatives of gender equivalency. The maturity judgment, articulated by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and supported by judges Khanwilkar, Nariman, and D.Y. Chandrachud, unequivocally pronounced that discriminative practices rooted in archaic sundries of chastity and pollution cannot be sanctified under the rationale of religious observance. Differing Justice Indu Malhotra contended that judicial intervention should be reserved for cases of obvious oppression in matters of profound religious conviction. This corner case illustrated the pressures that live between settled religious beliefs and the evolving norms of indigenous values, heralding a new period of judicial scrutiny over exclusionary religious customs. The ruling has set a transformative precedent for the creation of gender justice within religious disciplines and has mainly expanded the compass of indigenous morality and quality justice in India.
Case Laws
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):
This case established that secularism is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. The Court used this principle to assert that religious customs must conform to constitutional values and cannot endorse discrimination.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017):
The right to privacy was recognized as intrinsic to Article 21. The Court built upon this case to reiterate the importance of dignity and autonomy, particularly for women, in the context of religious practices.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017):
The Supreme Court held that triple talaq (instant divorce) was unconstitutional. The case highlighted that personal laws must adhere to constitutional norms and reinforced the judiciary’s role in curbing gender-discriminatory practices.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954):
The Court developed the Essential Religious Practices Test in this case, which became pivotal in assessing the validity of the exclusion of women from Sabarimala.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):
The judgment introduced guidelines for preventing sexual harassment in workplaces. It symbolized the proactive role of the judiciary in gender justice and was cited to support the Sabarimala decision in the absence of direct legislative redress.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Review Petition, 2019):
The Court decided to refer the matter to a larger nine-judge bench to deliberate broader questions on the balance between religious freedom and equality. This referral marked the judgment’s evolution into a constitutional benchmark for future jurisprudence.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala verdict stands as a cornerstone in the journey toward an egalitarian constitutional order. The judgment marked a paradigmatic shift in the treatment of gender within religious frameworks, recognizing that discriminatory traditions must give way to constitutional ideals. It held that customs rooted in gender discrimination cannot enjoy constitutional sanction, even if they are cloaked in the garb of religion. The Court’s emphasis on constitutional morality over popular morality sets a precedent for future conflicts between individual rights and group-based religious customs. However, the aftermath of the judgment also underscored deep societal resistance, with massive protests and widespread non-compliance reflecting the tension between law and social acceptance. The matter being referred to a nine-judge bench shows that the judicial journey on balancing rights in a diverse society is ongoing. Still, the original 2018 verdict remains a bold and decisive step toward justice, signaling the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the Constitution as the ultimate arbiter of rights and freedoms.
FAQS
Q1: What was the core constitutional issue in the Sabarimala case?
The central issue was whether excluding women of menstruating age from the temple violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 17 (untouchability), and 25 (freedom of religion).
Q2: What did the Court say about the essentiality of the practice?
The Court held that barring women was not an essential part of the Ayyappa faith, and thus not protected under Article 25 as an essential religious practice.
Q3: Why was Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules struck down?
Rule 3(b), which allowed the exclusion of women from places of worship, was found to be violative of the Constitution, especially the right to equality and non-discrimination.
Q4: How did the Court address the issue of menstruation?
The Court rejected menstruation-based exclusion, stating that it reinforced stereotypes and constituted a form of biological discrimination.
Q5: What was Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent?
Justice Malhotra opined that courts should not interfere in religious practices unless they are oppressive or violate public order. She viewed the Ayyappa devotees as a separate religious denomination.
Q6: What is constitutional morality?
Constitutional morality refers to adherence to values like liberty, equality, fraternity, and secularism enshrined in the Constitution, even in the face of contrary social or religious practices.
Q7: What is the current status of the judgment?
Though the judgment remains valid, its implementation has faced backlash. A larger nine-judge bench is set to review broader legal questions concerning religious freedom and equality.
