The Sabarimala Case: The Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgment on 28 September, 2018 in which it allowed the entry of women inside the Sabarimala Temple. This was seen in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State Of Kerala ((2019) 11 SCC 1; 2018 (8) SCJ 609) which was presided over by CJI Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice A M Khanwilkar
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Sabarimala Temple, considered Lord Ayyappa’s residence, is located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Pathanamthitta District of Kerala’s Western Ghat mountain ranges. The temple is well-known for its unusual religious practices—devotees perform a 41-day penance, foregoing worldly pleasures, before visiting the shrine. Devotees regard Lord Ayyappa as a celibate divinity. To protect chastity, women in their menstruating years’ (between the ages of 10 and 50) were traditionally barred from attending the temple.
Women’s exclusion was first challenged in the Kerala High Court. In S. Mahendran v The Secretary, Travancore, the Kerala High Court ruled in 1991 that the exclusion was constitutional and reasonable because it was a long-standing habit. The practice did not infringe on the rights of female devotees to equality and freedom of religion.
The Indian Young Lawyers Association petitioned the Supreme Court in 2006, contesting the Sabarimala Temple’s prohibition on women entering the temple grounds. According to the Association, the custom violates the Right to Equality under Article 14 since it is “derogatory to the dignity of women.” According to Article 25, “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice, and promote religion.” The exclusion of female worshippers is a violation of such rights.
The Indian Young Lawyers Association petitioned the Supreme Court in 2006, contesting the Sabarimala Temple’s prohibition on women entering the temple grounds. According to the Association, the custom violates the Right to Equality under Article 14 since it is “derogatory to the dignity of women.” According to Article 25, “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice, and promote religion.” The exclusion of female worshippers is a violation of such rights.
The Supreme court considered the situation and formulated the following issues:
- Is it a violation of the Right to Equality, the Right against Discrimination, and the Abolition of Untouchability to restrict menstruation women from entering the Sabarimala Temple?
- Are Lord Ayyappa’s worshippers a separate religious group, with the authority to regulate their own affairs in religious matters?
- Is the exclusion of woman an “essential religious practise” under Article 25?
- Does Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules allow a “religious denomination” to exclude women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering?
- Do the Public Worship Rules, which enable the custom, contradict the parent legislation, which forbids discriminating practises?
JUDGEMENT:
The majority concluded that the barring of women from Sabarimala violated the fundamental rights of women aged 10 to 50. They further claimed that devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not form a new religious denomination. The custom, according to Justices Misra, Khanwilkar, and Chandrachud was not an essential religious practice. While the majority of the judges did not expressly indicate if the tradition violated the right to equality under Article 14, they did state that the practice was discriminatory under Article 15. According to Justice Chandrachud, the protection against untouchability is broad and includes any type of social exclusion based on ideals of ‘purity.’ Furthermore, Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules, permitted the practice of prohibiting women as unconstitutional. In the Judgment matrix, SCO breaks down each judge’s decision on key questions in the case.
The court ruled by a 4:1 majority that the practice infringed the fundamental rights to equality, liberty, and religious freedom, as well as Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21, and 25. (1). Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act was declared invalid. Rule 3(b) permitted Hindu denominations to bar women from public places of worship provided the ban was based on custom. The Supreme Court has permitted women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple, ruling that “devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination.”
In her dissent, Justice Indu Malhotra stated, “It is not for the courts to determine which of these religious practices are to be set down, unless if they are harmful, repressive, or a social ill, like Sati.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY RAMASHESHAN P K.