Research Paper on the Sabarimala Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v.
State of Kerala, 2018)
Introduction
The Indian Constitution is often described as a living document that evolves
with time, balancing tradition with modern values. The Sabarimala Temple
case stands as a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court of India was
called upon to decide whether religious customs could override the
constitutional guarantee of equality. The case, formally known as Indian Young
Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), became one of the most
debated legal battles in recent history. It was not just about the entry of
women into a temple but about the clash between faith and fundamental
rights.
Background of the Case
The Sabarimala Temple, located in Kerala, is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, a
celibate deity. For centuries, women of menstruating age (approximately
10–50 years) were prohibited from entering the temple. The restriction
was defended as a matter of age-old tradition meant to preserve the
deity’s celibacy.
The practice was codified under Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, which explicitly
barred women of a particular age group.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, questioning this exclusion as
discriminatory, unconstitutional, and violative of women’s fundamental
rights.
Legal Issues Involved
The case involved some of the most significant constitutional
questions:
1. Whether the practice violated the right to equality (Article 14) and
prohibition of discrimination (Article 15).
2. Whether it infringed the right to freedom of religion of women
(Article 25).
3. Whether religious denominations had the right to manage their
own affairs under Article 26.
4. Whether the restriction amounted to untouchability under Article
17.
5. Whether constitutional morality should prevail over social
customs.
Arguments by Petitioners
(Against the Ban)
Violation of Equality: The exclusion of women was arbitrary and
violated Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality and prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sex.
Freedom of Religion: Women also have a right to practice religion
under Article 25, and denying them entry infringed upon this
right.
Untouchability Analogy: Petitioners argued that this practice was
a form of exclusion akin to untouchability under Article 17.
Non-Essential Practice: They argued that the ban was not an
essential religious practice but a social custom, and hence not
protected under Article 25.
Arguments by Respondents (In
Support of the Ban)
Essential Practice: The temple authorities argued that the
restriction was an essential religious practice of the Sabarimala
temple, protected under Articles 25 and 26.
Unique Character of Deity: Lord Ayyappa is a celibate deity, and
allowing women of menstruating age would affect the character of
the deity.
Denominational Rights: The temple was claimed to be a religious
denomination, and hence it had the autonomy to regulate its
affairs under Article 26.
Tradition and Faith: The respondents emphasized that courts
should not interfere with long-standing traditions rooted in faith.
The Judgment (2018, 4:1 Majority)
The Constitution Bench of five judges—Chief Justice Dipak Misra,
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra—delivered the judgment on
28th September 2018.
Majority Opinion (4 Judges)
The restriction on women was unconstitutional.
Articles 14 and 15: The exclusion of women violated the principle
of equality and amounted to gender discrimination.
Article 25: Women have the right to practice religion, and the ban
restricted their freedom of religion.
Article 17: Justice Chandrachud stated that exclusion based on
menstruation was akin to a form of “untouchability,” prohibited
under Article 17.
Essential Practices Doctrine: The practice of excluding women
was held not to be an essential religious practice and hence not
protected by the Constitution.
Constitutional Morality: The Court stressed that constitutional
morality must prevail over religious traditions when they conflict
with fundamental rights.
Dissenting Opinion (Justice Indu
Malhotra)
Justice Indu Malhotra gave a lone dissent, holding that courts
should not interfere in matters of faith unless they are pernicious
or oppressive.
She argued that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa formed a separate
religious denomination, and their right to manage internal
religious affairs was protected.
According to her, the issue should have been left to the faith and
beliefs of devotees.
Aftermath and Controversy
The judgment sparked massive debates and protests across Kerala and India:
Protests: Devotees and temple authorities strongly opposed the ruling,
leading to large-scale demonstrations.
Implementation Challenges: Women attempting to enter the temple faced
resistance, and law enforcement agencies had to intervene.
Review Petitions: Several review petitions were filed, and in 2019, a larger
bench was constituted to reconsider the matter. The case remains under
judicial review, reflecting its complexity and sensitivity.
Significance of the Case
1. Gender Justice:
The ruling reaffirmed the principle that women cannot be denied rights
because of biological features like menstruation.
2. Constitutional Morality:
The case highlighted that when customs and traditions clash with
fundamental rights, constitutional morality must prevail.
3. Judicial Activism vs. Restraint:
The case reflected contrasting judicial philosophies—while four judges
embraced activism to uphold equality, Justice Malhotra’s dissent
emphasized judicial restraint in religious matters.
4. Essential Practices Doctrine:
The judgment redefined what qualifies as an essential practice of religion
and clarified that practices excluding or discriminating cannot claim
protection under Articles 25–26.
5. Social Debate:
The case ignited conversations about gender, religion, and tradition in
modern India, making it one of the most significant constitutional law
debates in recent years.
Critical Analysis
The Sabarimala case is not just about temple entry; it is about the role of the
Constitution in shaping society. On one hand, the judgment is celebrated as a
bold step towards gender equality. On the other hand, it is criticized for
interfering in religious traditions deeply rooted in culture.
The majority rightly emphasized constitutional morality as the guiding
principle. However, critics argue that imposing equality on religious practices
without community acceptance may create resistance rather than reform.
Justice Malhotra’s dissent reminds us that the judiciary must balance reform
with respect for faith.
Ultimately, the case reflects the tension between tradition and modernity,
between faith and law. It shows how India’s constitutional framework seeks to
harmonize diversity with justice.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala Case will remain a landmark in Indian constitutional history. It
reinforced the supremacy of fundamental rights, especially gender equality,
over religious customs. While implementation challenges and social backlash
continue, the case opened the door for greater conversations on women’s
rights and religious reform.
It teaches us that the Constitution is not merely a legal text but a promise of
justice, equality, and dignity to every individual. The debate it sparked proves
that India’s democratic spirit is alive—constantly questioning, evolving, and
striving for balance between faith and freedom.
