Indian Young Lawyers' Association v. State of Kerala (2018)

Introduction 

This case concerns the constitutional validity of the centuries-old custom of the Sabarimala Temple prohibiting women in their 'menstruating years' (aged 10 to 50) from entering the temple premises. 

• The petitioners challenged the exclusion as violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Facts 

• The Sabarimala Temple, located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala, is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, considered a celibate deity. Devotees undertake a 41-day penance before visiting the temple. 
• Women between the ages of 10 and 50 were customarily prohibited from entering the temple on the ground that their presence would disturb the celibacy of the deity. 
• The exclusion was first challenged before the Kerala High Court. In S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore (1991), the High Court upheld the exclusion as a long-standing custom that did not violate women's fundamental rights. 
• In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court, contending that the practice was derogatory to the dignity of women and violated their constitutional rights. 
• The Travancore Devaswom Board, which administers the temple, defended the exclusion as an essential religious practice protected under Article 26. It relied upon Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which permitted exclusion of women from places of worship based on custom and usage. 
• A three-Judge Bench referred the matter to a five-Judge Constitution Bench in October 2017.

Issues Involved 

• Whether the prohibition on women's entry violates the Right to Equality under Articles 14 and 15 and the abolition of untouchability under Article 17? 
• Whether the devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26? 
• Whether the exclusion of women constitutes an 'essential religious practice' under Article 25? 
• Whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965 permits a religious denomination to ban the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50? 
• Whether Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules is ultra vires the parent Act, which prohibits discriminatory practices?

Court’s Observations 

• The majority (4:1) held that the exclusion of women between 10 and 50 years from the Sabarimala Temple is unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 25 and 17 of the Constitution. 
• The Court held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination within the meaning of Article 26, and therefore cannot claim an independent right to manage religious affairs to the exclusion of women. 
• Justices Misra, Khanwilkar, and Chandrachud held that the exclusion of women is not an 'essential religious practice' of the Sabarimala Temple, and therefore cannot be protected under Article 25. 
• Justice Chandrachud further observed that the concept of untouchability under Article 17 is not confined to caste-based exclusion alone but extends to any social exclusion founded on notions of purity and pollution — including the exclusion of women on grounds of menstruation. 
• The Court struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, holding it to be ultra vires Section 4 of the parent Act, which prohibits discrimination against any Hindu on the basis of section or class. 
• In her dissent, Justice Indu Malhotra held that in a secular polity, courts should not interfere with religious customs and practices unless they are pernicious, oppressive, or constitute a social evil. She observed that the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs must be respected.

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, declared the Sabarimala Temple's custom of excluding women between 10 and 50 years unconstitutional, holding that devotion cannot be subjected to physiological conditions. 
• The Court reaffirmed that constitutional morality must prevail over social or popular morality, and that the right to worship is equally available to all persons regardless of gender. 
• Subsequently, more than 50 review petitions were filed. In November 2019, a 3:2 majority kept the review petitions pending and referred broader constitutional questions regarding religious freedom and gender equality to a nine-Judge Bench, while affirming that the 2018 judgment would continue to operate in the interim.