Author: Tejashwini Verma, Patna Law College
Introduction
The Sabarimala case, formally known as the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), represents a significant landmark in Indian legal and political history. The Supreme Court’s judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala sparked intense debate over the balance between religious freedoms and constitutional rights. This case underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional principles while traversing the complex interplay between religion and the law.
In this case, the apex court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, delivering a ratio decidendi that questioned the essential religious practices doctrine. The petitioners contended that the ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple was an ultra vires act, violating the jus cogens of gender equality under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution.
The Proof:
The controversy surrounding the Sabarimala temple, where the deity Lord Ayyappa is worshiped, revolved around the temple’s custom of barring women of menstruating age from entry, a practice defended by the temple authorities on grounds of religious tradition. The petitioners challenged this custom, arguing that it was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The crux of the argument hinged on whether the practice constituted an “essential religious practice” under Article 25, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court, in its 4:1 verdict, held that the exclusion of women based on biological factors was not an essential practice and was, therefore, subject to constitutional scrutiny. The majority opinion emphasized that constitutional morality, encapsulated in the principles of equality and dignity, must prevail over religious practices that discriminate against women.
Abstract:
The Sabarimala case is a landmark judicial pronouncement that highlights the tension between religious freedom and gender equality. The Supreme Court of India, in a majority verdict, ruled that the exclusion of women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple is unconstitutional. This article delves into the legal and political implications of the judgment, examining the doctrine of essential religious practices, the role of judicial review in religious matters, and the broader impact of the ruling on Indian society. Through an analysis of relevant case laws and constitutional provisions, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the Sabarimala case and its significance in the ongoing discourse on religious rights and constitutional supremacy.
Legal Issues at Stake:
The case posed several critical legal questions:
Is excluding women an essential religious practice under Article 25?
Whether the practice was protected under the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26?
Whether the exclusion violates the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, and 17?
The extent to which the judiciary can intervene in religious practices in a secular state?
Case Laws:
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018): The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional, emphasizing that religious practices must conform to constitutional morality.
Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958): This case explored the scope of religious freedom under Article 25, establishing that while religious denominations have the right to manage their affairs in matters of religion, such rights are subject to public order, morality, and health.
Shirur Mutt Case (1954): The Supreme Court introduced essential religious practices doctrine, which was pivotal in the Sabarimala judgment. The court ruled that only those practices integral to the religion are protected under Article 25.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right, reinforcing the idea that individual dignity and autonomy are integral to constitutional morality, which played a crucial role in the Sabarimala judgment.
Bhanwari Devi Case (1995): While not directly related to religious practices, this case highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding gender equality, a theme central to the Sabarimala case.
The Supreme Court’s Judgment
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict by a 4:1 majority, declaring the practice unconstitutional. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, held that the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala temple was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights.
Key Points from the Judgment:
Essential Religious Practices Doctrine:
The Court reiterated the doctrine of essential religious practices, which was established in the Shirur Mutt case (1954). The doctrine holds that only those practices that are essential to a religion are protected under Article 25. The Court ruled that the exclusion of women was not an essential practice of the Ayyappa devotees, and therefore, it could not be protected under the right to religious freedom.
Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination:
The Court emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any custom or practice that violates constitutional principles must be set aside. The exclusion of women was found to be in direct violation of Articles 14, 15, and 17, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on grounds of sex.
Constitutional Morality:
The judgment underscored the concept of constitutional morality, which requires that the principles of equality, dignity, and individual autonomy must be upheld, even if they conflict with religious practices. The Court ruled that in a secular democracy, constitutional morality must prevail over religious customs that are discriminatory.
Rights of Religious Denominations:
The respondents argued that the temple was managed by a religious denomination under Article 26, which allowed them to manage their affairs in matters of religion. However, the Court held that the Ayyappa devotees did not constitute a separate religious denomination and that their practices were subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole dissenting judge, argued that the Court should not interfere in religious matters unless there is a clear violation of public order, health, or morality. She emphasized that religious practices should be judged based on the faith and beliefs of the worshippers, not on constitutional principles. Justice Malhotra cautioned against judicial overreach in religious affairs, warning that it could lead to the erosion of religious freedoms.
Implications of the Judgment
The Sabarimala verdict has far-reaching implications for the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights in India. The judgment is seen as a victory for gender equality, as it affirmed the right of women to access religious spaces on an equal footing with men. It also reinforced the principle that religious practices must conform to the values enshrined in the Constitution.
However, the decision also sparked significant controversy and backlash. Many devotees and religious groups viewed the judgment as an intrusion into their religious practices and an affront to their beliefs. The ruling led to widespread protests in Kerala, with many arguing that the Court had failed to respect the sanctity of religious traditions.
Conclusion:
The Sabarimala judgment is a watershed moment in the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence in India. It reaffirms the principle that no custom or religious practice can supersede the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights enshrined in it. The decision underscores the judiciary’s duty to uphold constitutional morality and protect individual rights against discriminatory practices, even in the face of deep-seated religious traditions.
However, the judgment also sparked significant political and social backlash, leading to protests and a review petition filed in the Supreme Court. The ongoing debate highlights the complexity of balancing religious freedoms with constitutional mandates. While the final resolution of the case is still awaited, the Sabarimala judgment remains a critical point of reference for future legal and political discourse on the relationship between religion and the state and a touchstone for discussions on the limits of religious freedom in a secular, democratic republic.
FAQS:
What was the primary legal issue in the Sabarimala case?
The main legal issue was whether the exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple violated their fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and religious freedom under the Constitution.
What is the doctrine of essential religious practices?
This doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case, holds that only practices essential to a religion are protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. Non-essential practices can be subject to state intervention if they conflict with public order, morality, or health.
How did the Supreme Court justify its decision in the Sabarimala case?
The Court justified its decision by stating that the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice and that constitutional morality, which upholds principles like equality and dignity, must take precedence over discriminatory practices.
What has been the reaction to the Sabarimala judgment?
The judgment has been met with both support and opposition. While many hailed it as a victory for gender equality, others criticized it for interfering with religious practices. The decision led to widespread protests and a review petition in the Supreme Court.
What is the current status of the Sabarimala case?
Following the 2018 judgment, a review petition was filed, and the case was referred to a larger bench. As of now, the issue remains under judicial consideration, reflecting the ongoing tension between religious rights and constitutional principles.
