Author – Manyata sisodia, Student of guru gobind singh indraprastha university
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018): A Landmark in Constitutional Morality and Gender Justice
The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case, commonly known as the Sabarimala Temple case, stands as a historic moment in the Indian legal landscape. Delivered by the Supreme Court on September 28, 2018, this judgment has become a powerful symbol of the conflict between religious practices and fundamental constitutional rights, especially those of gender equality and non-discrimination. It represents a decisive shift towards enforcing constitutional morality over social customs that perpetuate exclusion.
Background of the Case
The Sabarimala temple, located in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala, is one of the most prominent Hindu pilgrimage sites in India. It is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, a deity revered by millions of devotees, and has historically followed a custom of prohibiting women of menstruating age—specifically between 10 and 50 years—from entering the temple. This custom was rooted in the belief that Lord Ayyappa is a “Naishtika Brahmachari” or a celibate deity, and the presence of women of reproductive age would disrupt the celibate nature of the deity and the spiritual sanctity of the temple.
This exclusionary practice had long gone unchallenged, partly because of religious sensitivities and partly due to the deeply entrenched patriarchal mindset that normalized the barring of women from certain religious spaces. However, in 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court challenging the practice, arguing that it was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Legal and Constitutional Questions
The case raised several fundamental legal questions that forced the Court to confront the balance between religious freedom and individual rights under the Constitution:
Whether the exclusion of women constituted a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 17.
Whether the custom of excluding women was an essential religious practice under Article 25.
Whether a religious denomination has the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion under Article 26(b).
Whether the Ayyappa devotees can be considered a separate religious denomination.
Whether the practice was protected as a matter of religious belief or struck down as unconstitutional.
Arguments by Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala was based solely on physiological factors—namely menstruation—and that this amounted to discrimination on the grounds of sex. They invoked:
Article 14 (Right to Equality): The practice violated the guarantee of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): This practice constituted discrimination on the basis of sex and was therefore impermissible.
Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability): Though traditionally aimed at caste-based discrimination, the petitioners argued that treating menstruating women as impure and restricting their access was analogous to untouchability.
They also contended that the Sabarimala temple could not claim protection under the guise of “essential religious practices” since the exclusion was not essential to the religion or to the identity of the temple itself.
Arguments by Respondents
The State of Kerala initially supported the restriction but later changed its stance, choosing to support women’s entry. However, the Travancore Devaswom Board (which manages the temple) and various religious organizations defended the practice, arguing:
Religious Denomination: Devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to manage their religious affairs under Article 26.
Essential Religious Practice: The restriction was an essential part of the temple’s religious practice and thus protected under Article 25.
Celibate Nature of the Deity: The presence of women of reproductive age was believed to interfere with the deity’s vow of celibacy, thereby affecting the spiritual discipline of the place.
The Supreme Court Judgment
In a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court held that the restriction on the entry of women was unconstitutional and struck down the discriminatory practice. The bench consisted of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, R.F. Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra. Justice Malhotra dissented.
Majority Opinion
Violation of Article 14 and 15: The majority held that the exclusion of women based on menstruation was a clear violation of their right to equality and the prohibition of sex-based discrimination.
Article 17 Interpretation: Justice Chandrachud took a broader view of Article 17, arguing that social exclusion on the basis of purity and pollution, even if not directly related to caste, constitutes a form of untouchability.
Non-Essential Religious Practice: The court ruled that the practice of excluding women was not an essential religious practice and therefore not protected under Article 25.
Denomination Status Denied: The court also found that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination under Article 26 and hence cannot claim special protections.
Justice Indu Malhotra’s Dissent
Justice Malhotra, the sole woman on the bench, dissented, asserting that constitutional morality should not override deeply held religious beliefs unless it is proven that such practices are egregiously unconstitutional. She emphasized that courts should not delve into the rationality of religious practices and that each religious group has the right to determine its essential practices.
Her dissent raised important concerns about judicial overreach and the limits of secularism when it comes to managing religious affairs.
Key Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws.
Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Article 17: Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Article 26: Provides the freedom to manage religious affairs.
Impact and Significance of the Judgment
Gender Equality in Religious Spaces
This judgment is a watershed moment in the fight for gender equality. By striking down an age-old custom rooted in patriarchal norms, the Court reinforced the constitutional principle that no religious practice can violate the rights of women. It set a precedent that gender-based exclusions under the guise of religious traditions are not immune from constitutional scrutiny.
Strengthening Constitutional Morality
The ruling emphasized the importance of constitutional morality—an idea that the Constitution, not social customs or religious beliefs, must guide the moral compass of the nation. This judgment placed the Constitution at the center of the debate, asserting that traditions that conflict with constitutional rights cannot be protected under the guise of religious freedom.
Broad Interpretation of Untouchability
Justice Chandrachud’s interpretation of Article 17 marked a progressive shift, recognizing exclusion based on menstruation as a form of “untouchability” and symbolic impurity. This interpretation paves the way for a broader application of Article 17 to cover various forms of social exclusion and stigma.
Challenges to the Essential Religious Practices Doctrine
The case reignited debates around the “essential religious practices” doctrine, which has been criticized for allowing courts to decide what is and isn’t essential to a religion—a task some argue should be left to religious communities themselves. The judgment sparked calls for revisiting or even scrapping the doctrine altogether.
Post-Judgment Developments
The Sabarimala verdict led to widespread protests across Kerala and other parts of India. Several religious groups and political parties opposed the ruling, leading to a highly polarized atmosphere. The temple authorities initially refused to implement the judgment, and women attempting to enter the shrine faced threats, violence, and public shaming.
In 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to review the verdict and referred the case to a larger nine-judge bench to reconsider the broader questions around the balance between religious freedom and other fundamental rights.
Key FAQs
Q: What was the central issue in the Sabarimala case?
A: The issue was whether barring women aged 10–50 from entering the temple was unconstitutional.
Q: What did the Supreme Court rule?
A: The Court ruled that the restriction was unconstitutional, as it discriminated against women and violated their fundamental rights.
Q: Why was the restriction seen as discriminatory?
A: Because it was based on a biological factor—menstruation—which applied only to women and treated them as impure.
Q: Did all judges agree with the decision?
A: No. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing that courts should not interfere with religious practices.
Q: Is the judgment final?
A: The original judgment stands, but the Supreme Court has referred related issues to a larger bench for further consideration.
Conclusion
The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case represents a turning point in the journey toward gender justice and equality in India. It demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to confront deep-rooted customs and challenge entrenched patriarchal norms under the guidance of the Constitution.
While the judgment has faced both legal and public resistance, its importance in affirming women’s rights in religious spaces cannot be overstated. It not only expanded the scope of constitutional rights but also set a powerful example for other social reforms.
The case continues to be a subject of academic debate, public discourse, and legal evolution. It has inspired movements across the country advocating for the entry of women into other religious spaces and has strengthened the foundation for a more inclusive society.
Ultimately, the Sabarimala case is not just about temple entry—it is about reaffirming that in a democratic, secular, and constitutional republic like India, no tradition, however sacred, can override the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen. The legacy of this judgment will live on as a beacon for future battles in the fight for gender equality, religious freedom, and human dignity.
—