INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION V.

STATE OF KERALA (2018)

– SABARIMALA TEMPLE ENTRY

Synopsis

 Introduction
 Facts
 Issues
 Petitioner Arguments
 Respondent Arguments
 Judgement
 Conclusion

Introduction

The Sabarimala Temple is located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghats of
Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. It is seen as the home of Lord Ayyappa. This temple is a major
pilgrimage destination and represents deep traditions and unique religious customs that draw
millions of worshippers each year. Devotees follow the strict 41-day penance period before
visiting the temple. This is called “Vratham” which requires self-discipline including avoiding8
alcohol, non-vegetarian food, and other pleasures.

Lord Ayyappa is viewed as a celibate deity, which influences the customs at the temple. The
belief in his celibacy has led to specific rules about who can enter the temple. Traditionally,
women who are menstruating, usually aged 10 to 50, have been barred from entering. This
restriction is based on the belief that their presence would disturb the deity’s celibate nature and
the temple’s sanctity.

The ban on menstruating women has made significant debate and controversy in recent years.
Supporters of gender equality and women’s rights have criticized this practice, saying that it is
discriminatory and goes against the equality principles in the Indian Constitution. The Kerala
High Court was the first to take on the issue of excluding women. Back in 1991, in the case of S.
Mahendran v The Secretary, Travancore, the court decided that this exclusion was actually
constitutional and made sense because it was an old tradition. They ruled that it didn’t infringe
on women devotees’ rights to equality or their freedom to worship. The 'Indian Young Lawyers
Association vs. State of Kerala and Ors.’ Case was all about women fighting for their right to
enter the Sabarimala Shrine Temple in Kerala.

Facts

In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association submitted a public interest litigation to the
Supreme Court, contesting the ban on women entering the Sabarimala Temple. They claimed that
this tradition infringes on the Right to Equality as outlined in Article 14, arguing that it is
disrespectful to women’s dignity. Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, stating that everyone
has the right to follow and practice their faith. By excluding women from the temple, this right is
being violated.

The management of the Sabarimala Temple falls under the Travancore Devaswom Board, which
was established by the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1950. They
defended the exclusion of women, saying it is a vital part of their religious beliefs. They clarified
that the ban applies only to women aged 10 to 50, linking it to the celibate nature of the deity.
They argued that Sabarimala is a religious community protected under Article 26 of the
Constitution, which allows religious groups to govern their own practices.

Additionally, the custom at Sabarimala is supported by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which specifies that certain individuals,
including women during specific times, are not permitted to worship in public places. This rule
permits the exclusion of women based on tradition. However, section 4 of the Kerala Hindu
Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, states that no regulations can
discriminate against any Hindu based on their class or section.

The State of Kerala initially agreed with the exclusion but later changed their position. They
argued that women should be allowed to enter the temple, stating that an age restriction (for
women aged 10-50) could effectively become a lifelong ban—there’s no assurance that women
will live to be 50 or 55. They contended that traditional practices could be invalidated by the
court if they violate fundamental rights.

On August 18, 2006, the Supreme Court sent notices to the involved parties. Then, on March 7,
2008, the case was passed to a 3-Judge Bench. It wasn’t until seven years later, on January 11,
2016, that the case was heard again. On February 20, 2017, the Court showed interest in sending
the case to a Constitution Bench. Ultimately, on October 13, 2017, the three-Judge Bench, which
included Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, directed a 5-
Judge Constitution Bench to make a ruling on the matter.

Issues

There are major 5 major issues which were discussed. First, the parties debated if the ban on
women violated the Right to Equality, the Right against discrimination, and the abolition of
untouchability. Next, they argued about whether the restriction on women at Sabarimala was an
‘essential religious practice’ and who gets to decide what counts as essential in a religion. The
third point of discussion was whether the Sabarimala Temple qualifies as a ‘religious
denomination’ or just a smaller group within a bigger religious organization. According to Article
26(b) of the Constitution, religious denominations have the right ‘to manage their own affairs in
matters of religion’. The fourth issue looked into whether the Public Worship Rules permitted a
ban on women. Lastly, they considered if the Public Worship Rules that allowed this custom
contradicted the main legislation that prohibited discriminatory practices.

Laws

 Article 14: Right to equality.

  Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex, caste, etc.
 Article 17: Abolition of untouchability.
 Article 25: Freedom of religion.
 Article 26: Rights of religious denominations.
 Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
 S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board (1991)
 Constitution Of India
 Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (15 of 1950)

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Indian Young Lawyers Association, acting as the petitioner, raised arguments against the rule
that prevents women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple.

Their main points focused on the temple’s ban on women between the ages of 10 and 50. They
argued that this restriction isn’t a fundamental aspect of Hinduism and shouldn’t be protected by
the freedom of religion clauses in the Indian Constitution. Moreover, since the Travancore
Devaswom Board manages the temple and receives public funding, it can’t claim to be a separate
religious entity that is above constitutional laws. The petitioners also highlighted that this
practice discriminates against women, violating their right to equality as stated in Article 14 of
the Constitution. Ultimately, they asserted that the practice contradicts constitutional values,
including equality, non-discrimination, and gender justice. In a significant ruling, the Supreme
Court permitted women of all ages to enter the temple, reinforcing their constitutional rights and
the need for non-discriminatory practices in secular religions.

Respondent’s argument

The Travancore Devaswom Board, representing the respondents, presented their case in support
of the longstanding practice that prevents women of menstruating age from entering the
Sabarimala temple.
They argued that Lord Ayyappa, the temple’s deity, is considered a legal entity with fundamental
rights under the Indian Constitution. Their reasoning was based on two main points: first, that in
Hinduism, an idol is believed to gain life once it is installed; and second, since the Sabarimala
temple pays taxes, the deity is entitled to rights under the Constitution. The respondents
maintained that the “celibate status” of Lord Ayyappa requires constitutional safeguarding. They
claimed that the deity possesses a Fundamental Right under Article 25(1) to uphold
‘Brahmacharya’, which they argue is compromised by the entry of menstruating women into the
temple. Furthermore, they asserted that the deity has a right to privacy as outlined in Article 21.

The respondents stressed that the traditions of the temple define its religious identity. They
contended that the rights of a religious denomination are not dependent on whether a place of
worship is open to the public. Although individuals from various faiths may visit the temple, it
fundamentally represents the beliefs of Ayyappa’s followers. Additionally, they pointed out that
according to tradition, devotees must first visit a mosque before entering the temple,
emphasizing that this “spiritual communality” reflects the essence of a religious denomination.

Judgement

The court noted that the followers of Lord Ayyappa do not form a distinct religious group as
defined by Article 26. Moreover, the ban on women was not considered a significant religious
practice due to the absence of any scriptural or literary backing for it.

Additionally, the court ruled that Rule 3(b) of the KHPW Rules was unconstitutional because it
violated Part III of the Indian Constitution. It was pointed out that Rule 3(b) contradicted the
purpose of the KHPW Act, which aims to reform and make Hindu public places accessible to
everyone.

Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole judge who believed that the court should generally avoid
interfering in matters involving deep religious feelings. She argued that rationality should not
apply in religious contexts. Justice Malhotra also asserted that Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution protects the temple and that it should be considered a religious denomination. She
disagreed with the idea that the practice was discriminatory under Article 17, claiming that the
discrimination was meant to preserve the temple’s sanctity.
Conclusion

Religious freedoms are crucial for democracy in a diverse country like India. The Sabarimala
verdict highlights that the fight for equality and justice is a continuous process, needing everyone
in society to work together for a fairer and more inclusive world. The court pointed out the
significance of gender equality and the need to avoid discrimination, making it clear that
religious traditions can’t be used to justify treating women unfairly. This verdict has sparked
ongoing discussions about religious freedoms, gender equality, and the rights of indigenous
people. While the ruling supported the idea of equality, it also called for discussions on how
much the judiciary should get involved in religious issues, with some critics advocating for the
independence of religious organizations.

Citation

https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MjkzMw==

https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fdigiscr.sci.gov.in%2Fview_judgment%3Fid
%3DMjkzMw%3D%3D&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs
%2Fm2%2F4

References

https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Findiankanoon.org%2Fdoc%2F1915943%2F
%23%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%2520Travancore%2520Devaswom%2520Board%2520had
%2Cusage%2520allowed%2520to%2520enter
%2520temples.&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs
%2Fm2%2F4
https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Findiankanoon.org%2Fdoc
%2F144474018%2F&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs
%2Fm2%2F4