Author: Bidisha Saha
Abstract
One of the Indian Supreme Court’s most influential rulings of the twenty-first century is the
Sabarimala Temple Entry Case, Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018). The case concerned the constitutionality and legality of a long-standing temple tradition that forbade women between the ages of 10 and 50 who were menstruating from entering the Lord Ayyappa-focused Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. This ban was contested as a violation of women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Indian Constitution, despite being supported by the deity’s vow of celibacy (Naishtika Brahmacharya).
More than just lifting the ban, the ruling rekindled national discussions about constitutional morality, gender justice, religious freedom, and the judiciary’s role in religious reform. This article explores the practice’s historical roots, both sides’ legal arguments, the Court’s doctrines (such as Constitutional Morality and the Essential Religious Practices test), and the broad ramifications of the 4:1 decision.
In the end, the Sabarimala ruling represents India’s constitutional promise that no custom, no matter how old, can take precedence over equality and dignity. It is not just a decision regarding temple admission.
Introduction
One of India’s most well-known Hindu pilgrimage sites, the Sabarimala Temple is situated in Kerala’s Western Ghats and draws millions of followers each year. Lord Ayyappa, the temple’s chief deity, is thought to be a Naishtika Brahmachari, or a god dedicated to perpetual chastity. Women between
the ages of 10 and 50, which roughly corresponds to menstruating age, were traditionally forbidden from entering the temple grounds out of respect for this belief.
Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, which
allowed religious denominations to control the entry of individuals “not in accordance with custom,” formalized this custom. The Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran v. Travancore Devaswom Board
(1991) upheld this ban, declaring it an essential part of Ayyappa worship.
The Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) petitioned the Supreme Court in 2006 to lift the ban under Article 32 of the Constitution. They claimed that the restriction went against women’s basic rights to freedom of religion, equality, and dignity. The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution
Bench rendered its landmark decision in 2018, overturning the ban by a 4:1 majority, more than ten years later.
The ruling declared that discrimination cannot be justified on the basis of faith, opening a new chapter in constitutional jurisprudence. However, it also sparked large-scale demonstrations in Kerala, highlighting the stark differences between cultural sentiment and constitutional law.
Use of Legal Jargon (Explained with Context)
To decode the Sabarimala case, one must understand several key legal concepts and doctrines that shaped the Court’s reasoning:
Essential Rights
These rights, which are protected by Part III of the Constitution, protect each person’s freedom and dignity. Relevant clauses consist of:
Article 14: Equal protection under the law and equality before the law.
Discrimination based on sex, religion, or place of birth is prohibited by Article 15(1).
Article 17: Eliminates all forms of untouchability.
Article 25: Guarantees the right to freely express, practice, and spread religion as well as freedom of conscience.
Article 26: Gives religious groups the freedom to run their own affairs.
Morality under the Constitution
Constitutional morality, which was first used by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and has since been revived in contemporary jurisprudence, requires that governance and the law prioritize the spirit and values of the Constitution, particularly equality and dignity, over conventional morality or social norms.
Test of Essential Religious Practices (ERP)
A legal standard that establishes whether a practice is fundamental to a religion was established in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954). It cannot assert constitutional protection otherwise.
Denomination of Religion
A denomination is required by Article 26 to have an organized structure, a distinct identity, and a shared faith. Whether the Ayyappa devotees made up such a denomination was at question in Sabarimala
Logical Categorization
A principle under Article 14 that permits differentiation only if it is justified and based on an
understandable difference. This theory was put to the test when women were excluded due to their menstruation.
Morality, Public Order, and Health
Article 25(1) restricts the freedom of religion. Crucially, “morality” in this context refers to constitutional morality rather than communal morality
Evidence and Legal Arguments
Arguments of the Petitioners (Indian Young Lawyers Association)
Violation of Article 14 (Equality): The ban established an arbitrary classification based only on sex and physiological characteristics, with no logical connection to any justifiable goal.
Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): The Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of sex and biological traits, which is what happened when women were denied entry to a public
temple.
Article 25 (Freedom of Religion): Everyone has the right to practice their religion. Due to an arbitrary interpretation of tradition, the ban restricted women’s freedom of worship.
Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability): A contemporary form of “untouchability” was exclusion based on the idea of purity and pollution connected to menstruation.
Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules Is Ultra Vires: The rule that permitted temples to exclude women on the basis of custom was unconstitutional because it went against the goal of the parent Act, which was to guarantee public access to temples.
Not a Fundamental Religious Practice: Ayyappa worship did not revolve around the exclusion. The practice was neither ancient nor necessary, as historical evidence indicated that women had entered the temple in previous centuries.
Arguments from the State of Kerala, the Travancore Devaswom Board, and the Intervenors
Article 26 (Religious Denomination Autonomy): Lord Ayyappa’s followers establish a religious denomination with unique customs. They have the constitutional right to oversee their religious affairs as a result.
Celibate Nature of the Deity: Lord Ayyappa is revered as a Naishtika Brahmachari, and the restriction was required to maintain his celibate nature.
Tradition, Not Discrimination: Religious reverence for the deity’s vow of celibacy drove the exclusion rather than gender prejudice.
Judicial Non-Interference: The Court ought to stay out of religious matters. Faith-related issues cannot be rationally examined.
Evidence in Support (“Proof”)
First. Biblical Evidence:
The exclusion of women was not required by any authoritative scripture. The cited sources were interpretive rather than doctrinal.
Two. Historical Evidence
Claims that the restriction was a “eternal tradition” were undermined by historical accounts, which showed that it only became firmly established in the late 20th century, particularly following the 1991 High Court ruling.
Third. Administrative Evidence
Due to its statutory authority under state law, the Travancore Devaswom Board was prohibited from enforcing discrimination by constitutional standards.
The 2018 Judgment: An Epochal Decision
Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Indu Malhotra made up the Constitution Bench.
On September 28, 2018, a 4:1 majority decided to permit women to enter.
Majority Opinion
Violation of Equality (Articles 14 and 15): According to the majority, discrimination based on menstruation is based on a physiological characteristic that is unique to women. It violates the equal protection clause and fails the test of reasonable classification.
Article 25: Right to Worship: This constitutional right is gender-neutral. The Court ruled that women have an equal right to spiritual fulfillment.
Article 17: Extension of Untouchability: Justice Chandrachud described this as a type of systemic
discrimination and extended the application of Article 17 to any exclusion based on ideas of pollution and purity.
Essential Religious Practices Test: The majority came to the conclusion that the prohibition did not constitute an essential religious practice. Exclusion was not essential to Lord Ayyappa’s worship
because his celibacy did not depend on the absence of women.
Board of Travancore Devaswom Not a Religious Denomination: According to the Court, Ayyappa devotees did not fit the requirements of an Article 26 distinct denomination. As a result, their claim of autonomy was rejected.
Constitutional Morality: Justices Nariman and Chandrachud stressed that customs must yield to constitutional morality. According to Justice Chandrachud:
Individual dignity is prioritized over all forms of social and religious dominance by the Constitution.
Reading Down Rule 3(b): Because it infringed upon women’s fundamental rights, the rule allowing exclusion was ruled to be unconstitutional.
Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissenting opinion
The nuanced defense of religious freedom in Justice Malhotra’s dissent is noteworthy. Important Points:
It is not appropriate to use reason to test matters of faith.
Courts shouldn’t get involved unless a practice seriously harms people or goes against morality, public health, or order.
According to Article 26, Ayyappa devotees are eligible for autonomy as a religious denomination. Religious pluralism may be undermined by judicial intervention in deeply held beliefs.
In line with precedents such as Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), her dissent reflects judicial restraint and the principle of non-interference in religion.
Repercussions and Socio-Legal Effects
Kerala saw massive protests in response to the ruling. The decision was seen by many devotees as an attack on tradition. Women who tried to enter the temple encountered hostility despite police
protection.
After initially endorsing the ruling, the Kerala government encountered political criticism. Following the filing of a review petition, the Supreme Court sent the case to a larger nine-judge bench in 2019 to reevaluate the parameters of the Essential Religious Practices test and the harmony between equality and religious freedom.
The 2018 ruling is still in effect—women are legally allowed to enter Sabarimala—even though the review is still ongoing.
Outside of the courtroom, the case changed the national conversation about judicial reform in religious cases, gender equality in religion, and the reinterpretation of sacred customs under constitutional scrutiny.
Critical Evaluation
India’s constitutional conundrum of balancing religion and fundamental rights is embodied in the Sabarimala case. A progressive interpretation of the Constitution as a living document that changes with society was embraced by the majority ruling. It was consistent with previous landmark rulings in which constitutional morality overcame social orthodoxy, such as Shayara Bano v. Union of India (Triple Talaq, 2017) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (LGBTQ+ rights, 2018).
Critics contend that the majority ruling obscured the distinction between faith-based autonomy and judicial activism. The dissent by Justice Malhotra serves as a reminder that religious freedom
encompasses the right to continue unique customs, even if they seem exclusive.
The case raises a more general question: Should faith reform naturally or should the judiciary modernize religion? The Sabarimala ruling guarantees that discrimination cannot pass for devotion, even though the answer is still up for debate.
In conclusion
More than just a legal battle, the Sabarimala Temple Entry case is a turning point in India’s progress toward gender equality and constitutional enlightenment. The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that the Constitution is the supreme law, not custom.
The Court reaffirmed that devotion and dignity are not mutually exclusive by overturning the exclusion of women based on menstruation. The ruling is evidence of India’s developing democracy, where the Constitution serves as both a protector and a reformer, and where traditional customs coexist with contemporary equality.
However, the opposition that followed the decision shows that social consciousness cannot be changed by legislation alone. Society must come to understand that equality, not exclusion, is the path to spiritual purity if Sabarimala’s promise is to be fulfilled.
Common Questions (FAQ)
What prompted the filing of the Sabarimala case?
The Indian Young Lawyers Association filed the lawsuit in 2006, claiming that the prohibition on women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25.
Which constitutional questions were brought up?
Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 17 (abolition of untouchability), 25 (freedom of religion), and 26 (denominational rights) all interacted in this case.
What was the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court?
The Court decided in a 4:1 majority that women of all ages are entitled to enter the temple and that the ban is unconstitutional.
What is the test known as the Essential Religious Practices (ERP)?
It establishes if a practice is essential to a religion. It cannot infringe upon fundamental rights if it is not necessary.
Constitutional Morality: What Is It?
It refers to upholding constitutional values over social or religious morality, particularly equality, liberty, and dignity.
What was stated in the dissent of Justice Indu Malhotra?
She maintained that the Ayyappa devotees established a legitimate religious denomination and that courts shouldn’t get involved in religious disputes unless they seriously hurt people.
Is the 2018 ruling still enforceable?
Indeed. The 2018 decision is still in force even though it was referred to a larger bench for review.
What was society’s response to the decision?
Large-scale protests in Kerala were triggered by the verdict, demonstrating the intense cultural sensitivity surrounding the matter. But it also sparked national conversations about religious reform and women’s rights.
What more general principle is established by the case?
It solidifies the notion that religious freedom is inextricably linked to gender equality and that no practice is exempt from constitutional scrutiny.
What is Sabarimala’s legacy?
The case establishes a precedent for future discussions on the relationship between religion, law, and gender and stands as a constitutional landmark asserting that faith must change with equality.
