Author: Vrinda Bhardwaj, O.P Jindal Global University
To the Point
The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, a centuries-old Hindu shrine became the battleground for a historic constitutional decision in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018). The issue was could women aged 10 to 50 (essentially those who menstruate) be denied entry into the temple based on religious custom. The Supreme Court of India in a 4:1 majority held that such exclusion violated fundamental rights under the Constitution. The judgment was about a struggle between tradition and constitutional morality.
Use of Legal Jargon
At the heart of the case there were constitutional principles which were Articles 14 (Equality before Law), 15 (Non-discrimination), 25 (Freedom of Religion) and 26 (Rights of Religious Denominations). The case asked whether the ban could be justified as a legitimate exercise of religious freedom or whether it amounted to untouchability in a modern sense.
The court also checked whether the Sabarimala Temple Trust constituted a “religious denomination” under Article 26 and if it did then whether its practices were protected as “essential religious practices”.
The Proof
The petitioners, led by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, took a stand against a Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 that allowed women to be kept out of temples due to the tradition. They argued that such exclusion based on custom was unfair and needed to be challenged.They argued that:
The practice was discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15.
It infringed on women’s right to worship under Article 25.
It did not qualify as an essential religious practice under Article 26(b).
The respondents, mainly the Travancore Devaswom Board (which manages the temple) defended the restriction as:
A centuries-old religious custom.
Essential to maintaining the temple deity’s naishtika brahmacharya (eternal celibacy).
The Court considered mythological texts, historical practices, constitutional provisions, and evolving social norms.
Abstract
The Sabarimala Case’s a big decision by the Supreme Court of India that removed a ban on the entry of 10-50 year old women into the Sabarimala Temple. The majority held that the ban was unconstitutional, violating gender equality, freedom of religion, and non-discrimination. The case is widely seen as a a big moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence particularly in the areas of religious freedom, gender justice and the limits of essential religious practices. It laid the groundwork for future jurisprudence on the intersection of tradition and modern constitutional values.
Case Laws
The majority judgment leaned heavily on previous landmark decisions like:
1. The Shirur Mutt Case (1954)
Citation: AIR 1954 SC 282
This case laid down the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, which relied on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The dispute centered around whether the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was legally valid, as it aimed to oversee and manage the administration of temples. The Supreme Court held that while the State could regulate secular aspects of religious institutions, it could not interfere with religious doctrines and practices deemed essential by the followers of that religion. The Court said that an essential religious practice must be decided by the religion itself and not the State.
Relevance to Sabarimala:
The Shirur Mutt case was crucial in Sabarimala because it set the legal standard for determining what practices can be constitutionally protected. The Court in Sabarimala used this test to check whether restricting women aged 10–50 from the temple was an essential religious practice. It concluded that such exclusion did not pass the ERP test and hence could not claim constitutional protection under Article 25.
2. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958)
Citation: AIR 1958 SC 255
In this case, a religious sect managing a temple in Karnataka barred Dalits (Scheduled Castes) from entry by saying that this was their religious custom. The challenge came under Article 25(2)(b), which empowers the State to ensure that temples are open to all classes of Hindus. The Supreme Court held that while religious denominations have rights under Article 26 to manage their own affairs but these rights are subject to the overriding constitutional goal of ensuring equal access to public religious institutions. The judgment recognized a balance between religious autonomy and social reform.
Relevance to Sabarimala:
This case showed that religious practices that exclude people based on identity (like caste or gender) can be restricted by the State for the sake of equality. The Court in Sabarimala applied this reasoning to hold that the exclusion of women violated their right to worship, and any claim of autonomy under Article 26 must also follow the objectives of social justice and gender equality under Article 25(2)(b).
3. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983)
Citation: AIR 1983 SC 1
This case was about the Auroville Foundation Act and whether Aurobindo Ashram constituted a religious denomination and could have to protection under Article 26. The Court set out the criteria for what can be a “religious denomination” which is that it must be a body or sect with a common faith, distinct name, and a systematic organization. Since Aurobindo Ashram did not fulfill these criteria, it was held that the group was not a religious denomination according to Article 26.
Relevance to Sabarimala:
The Sabarimala temple’s management claimed that it represented a distinct religious denomination practicing naiṣṭhika brahmacharya (eternal celibacy) and was therefore entitled to autonomy. However, the Court, following the S.P. Mittal ruling, found that the temple did not meet the required standards to be considered a religious denomination. Hence, it could not claim the constitutional protection to practice those restrictive practices against women under Article 26.
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1.
In this landmark judgment, the Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. It said that dignity, personal autonomy and the freedom to make individual choices are components of liberty. This decision expanded the interpretation of constitutional rights reinforcing an approach that centers the Constitution around the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Relevance to Sabarimala:
In Sabarimala right to privacy and autonomy of women to enter the temple was the issue. Relying from Puttaswamy, the Court held that women’s right to make autonomous religious choices was protected by the Constitution. The ban on entry violated their dignity and personal liberty and hence could not stand in a modern constitutional democracy.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala judgment is not just about temple entry. It’s about a larger constitutional question: can customs and traditions (even if religious) override fundamental rights? The majority in this case said no by showcasing constitutional morality, gender equality and individual freedom over exclusion based on custom.
However, the dissenting opinion by Justice Indu Malhotra said that the courts should not interfere in matters of faith unless there’s a clear constitutional violation. Her opinion shiws a conflict between faith and constitutional morality and continues to influence the ongoing debate on the limits of judicial intervention in religion.
While the practical enforcement of the decision has faced public backlash and political resistance but the case showed religious freedom and gender justice in India.
FAQS
1. What was the main issue in the Sabarimala case?
The main issue was whether the exclusion of menstruating women (ages 10-50) from entering the Sabarimala Temple was constitutionally valid in the context of religious freedom versus gender equality.
2. What did the Supreme Court decide in the 2018 judgment?
By a 4:1 majority, the Court held that the ban was unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, and 25. It removed Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Kerala Rules which was about banning women of 10-50 years to enter
3. What is the ‘essential religious practice’ test?
The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test, established in the Shirur Mutt case, determines whether a religious practice is fundamental to a religion. If it is, it may be protected under Article 25 or 26. The Court found that excluding women was not an essential practice of the Ayyappa faith.
4. Was Sabarimala Temple a religious denomination?
The Court held that it did not meet the requirements of a religious denomination under Article 26, which includes a common faith, organization and distinctive name. Hence, it could not claim absolute autonomy over temple practices.
5. What did the dissenting opinion say?
Justice Indu Malhotra dissented stating that courts should not interfere in religious matters unless a practice violates public order, health or morality. She focused on respecting religious diversity and autonomy of religious communities.
6. What happened after the judgment?
Despite the ruling, mass protests erupted across Kerala. Women who tried to enter the temple faced hostility. The state government initially supported the ruling but later took a more neutral stance during the backlash. The Supreme Court referred the case to a larger bench in 2019 due to the continuing social and legal tensions.
7. Is the judgment final?
No. The 2019 Review Petition led to a 3:2 verdict to refer the case to a 7-judge bench to again check broader issues on religion and constitutional rights, especially concerning other similar religious disputes (like entry of Muslim women in mosques, female genital mutilation, etc.).
8. Why is the case significant for Indian constitutional law?
It affirms that constitutional rights cannot be overridden by custom no matter how old. It focuses on the primacy of constitutional morality according to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision.
