Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2018)

9/12/22, 6:00 PM Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.
(2018)
Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs.

The State of Kerala & Ors. (2018)
By Mariya Paliwala - December 14, 2019
Image source - https://bit.ly/36BfMIu
This article is written by Gauraw Kumar, a 2nd-year student of BVP-New Law College,
Pune. This article covers a very important case of 2018 “Indian Young Lawyers
Association vs State of Kerala and Ors.” popularly known as “Sabarimala Case” and tries
to explain its facts, history, issues and judgement of the case.
Table of Contents 
1. Introduction
2. Summary of Facts
3. Identification of Parties (including the name of the judges)
4. Issues before the Court
5. Arguments by Parties on Issues
5.1. Arguments in favour of women entry
5.2. Arguments against women entry
6. Judgement (Ratio decidendi and Obiter Dictum)
6.1. Ratio decidendi
6.2. Obiter dictum
7. Critical Analysis of the Judgement
8. Case Description and Status
9. Conclusion
Introduction
Women in our society have always struggled for equal status and representation in public
spaces. But, the situation is changing now and various reforms have come through the
judgements of the Courts. Like in Shah Bano case, the Supreme Court has protected the
rights of Muslim women from the practice of triple talaq. In the case of Dr Noorjehan
Safia Niaz vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors., the Supreme Court has allowed entry of
women inside Haji Ali Dargah.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/indian-young-lawyers-association-ors-vs-state-kerala-ors-2018/ 1/14
9/12/22, 6:00 PM Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2018)
Now, the case of ‘Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala and Ors.’ involved
women’s struggle for getting the entry in Sabarimala Shrine Temple located in the State
of Kerala. Women have done a lot of struggle for the protection of their rights. The
Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala region in Kerala has been controversial for provision of
restricting women of menstruating age (10-15 years of age) to enter into Sabarimala
Temple, Kerala. In this case, there were many issues raised in which it was argued by
petitioners that provisions related to the restriction of women entry in Temple are
unconstitutional as it violates Article 14, 15, 17, 25, 26 of the Indian Constitution.
Finally, the Supreme Court held that women of all age groups can enter Sabarimala
shrine Temple as everyone has a right to worship and it is the constitutional and
fundamental right of everyone given in Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
To know more about the Sabarimala Temple Case 2018 in brief, please refer to the video
below:
There are differences in Constitutional ideals and social reality. There is a wide gap
between provisions given in the Indian Constitution and the reality of society. In this
case, the Supreme Court has tried to bridge the gap between both.
Summary of Facts
There is a Hindu Temple dedicated to Ayyappan named Sabarimala shrine in the State
of Kerala. It is a temple located at Sabarimala inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve in
‘Pathanamthitta’ district of Kerala.
The Sabarimala shrine, which is one of the most famous temples in Kerala, had
restricted women (of menstruating age) from entry.
Several women tried to enter the Temple but could not because of threats of physical
assault against them.
A group of five women lawyers had moved the Apex Court challenging the decision of
the Kerala High Court which upheld the centuries-old restriction, and ruled that only
the “Tantrik (Priest)” was empowered to decide on traditions.
Identification of Parties (including the name of the

judges)
In 1990, S Mahendra filed a petition, alleging that young women were visiting
Sabarimala Temple. The verdict of the same came in 1991 where Justice K. Paripoornan
and K. Balanarayana Marar of Kerala High Court held that women of ages 10 to 50 years
old are banned from offering worship at Sabarimala Temple and stating that such
restriction is not from today, it was from accordance with usage prevalent for a very long
time. The High Court also directed the Government of Kerala to enforce the order to ban
entry of women in Temple with the help of Police Force. The Court observed as:
Such restriction of women entry is not violative of Article 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian
Constitution and also the provisions of Hindu Place of Public Worship Act, 1965. As there
is no restriction between two classes or sections of society but the restrictions are only
for women of particular age group.
In 2006, Members of the Indian Young Lawyers Association (consisting six women), filed
a petition in the Supreme Court to lift the ban to enter into Sabarimala Temple against
women between the ages of 10 and 50. They forwarded arguments that this ban was a
violation of their constitutional rights and also questioned the validity of provisions given
in Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules Act,1965 which supported it.
Petitioner(s): Indian Young Lawyers Association; Dr Laxmi Shastri; Prerna Kumari;

Alka Sharma; Sudha Pal.
Respondent(s): The State of Kerala; Travancore Devaswom Board; Chief Tanthri of

Sabarimala Temple; District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta; Nair Service Society; Akhil
Bhartiya Ayyappa Seva Sangham; Ayyappa Seva Samithi; Ayyappa Pooja Samithi;
Dharma Sanstha Seva Samajam; Akil Bhartiya Malayalee Sangh; sabarimala Ayyappa
Seva Samajam; Kerala Kshetra Samarak Shana Samithi; Pandalam Kottaram Nirvahaka
Sangham; sabarimala Custom Protection Forum
Petitioner’s Lawyers: R.P. Gupta; Raja Ramachandran (Amicus Curiae); K.

Ramamoorthy (Amicus Curiae).
Respondent’s Lawyer: Jaideep Gupta; Liz Mathew; Venugopal, (Travancore

Devaswom); V.Giri, (State of Kerala); Rakesh Dwivedi; K. Radhakrishanan.
In this case, there were 5 judges constitutional bench includes Chief Justice of India
Dipak Misra, Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice R F Nariman, Justice D Y Chandrachud and
Justice Indu Malhotra.
Issues before the Court

There were mainly three issues raised in this case:
Whether this restriction imposed by the temple authorities violates Articles 15, 25 and
26 of the Indian Constitution?
Whether this restriction violates the provisions of Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship
Act, 1965?
Whether the Sabarimala Temple has a denominational character?
Arguments by Parties on Issues

There were many arguments passed by both parties on these issues. These are the
following:
Arguments in favour of women entry

The arguments given in favor of women entry by the petitioners were- Menstruation is
not impure, and that women should have equal rights to enter the Sabarimala Temple. A
criticism claims that we cannot consider women are impure based on menstruation and it
is gender discrimination. The Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, said that his
party (Left Democratic Front) has always supported gender equality and we provide
facilities and protection for women. This practice also violates Article 14 (Equality before
Law) of the Indian Constitution as discrimination on the basis of a specific age group of
women is not reasonable discrimination.
This restriction violates Article 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution:
Article 15 deals with “prohibition on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth”. Here, this practice involves violation of Article 15 as discrimination to enter the
temple was based on ‘sex’.
Article 25 deals with “freedom of conscience and free profession, propagation and
practices of religion”. Here, this practice involves violation of Article 25 as it prevents
women from freedom of practice of religion.
Article 26 deals with “freedom to manage religious affairs”. Here, this practice clearly
violates the provision of Article 26.
The provisions in Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Act, 1965 which support
restriction to women’s entry in the temple is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14,
15, 25 and 26 of Indian Constitution.
One of the arguments from the side of the petitioner that the Lord Ayyappa temple
was not a separate religious denomination for Article 26 because the religious
practices performed in Sabarimala Temple at the time of ‘puja’ and other religious
ceremonies are not different from other religious practices performed in other Hindu
Temples.
Arguments against women entry

The arguments given against women entry by Respondent- Such religious practices are
not so old as it is a tradition to respect God/Goddess of Temple. Men are also restricted
to enter and worship in several temples, for example, Bramha temple, Pushkar.
There is no violation of Article 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution as the

restriction is only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a
class. If the practice of restriction to the entry of women is made for women as a
class, then only it will violate the above-mentioned Articles of the Indian Constitution.
The provisions in Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Act, 1965 also support this
restriction.
Judgement (Ratio decidendi and Obiter Dictum)
Ratio decidendi
‘Ratio decidendi’ is the rule of law on which judicial decision is based. It is legally
binding.
On 28th September 2018, the Court delivered its verdict in this case by 4:1 majority
which held that the restriction of women in Sabarimala Temple is unconstitutional. It held
that the practice violated the fundamental rights to equality, liberty and freedom of
religion, Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21 and 25(1). It struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala
Hindu Places of Public Worship Act as unconstitutional. Rule 3(b) allowed for Hindu
denominations to exclude women from public places of worship, if the exclusion was
based on ‘custom’.
The Apex Court has allowed entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala Temple,
and held that “Devotion can not be subjected to Gender Discrimination.”
Obiter dictum
‘Obiter dictum’ is a judge’s expression of opinion uttered in court or in a written
judgement, but not essential to the decision and therefore not legally binding as a
precedent.
In this case, the Court ruled thus:
“We have no doubt in saying that such practice infringes the right of women to enter a
temple and freely practice Hindu religion”.
“Devotion can not be subjected to Gender Discrimination”.
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India stated in his Judgement that religion is a way of life linked
to the dignity of an individual and patriarchal practices based on the exclusion of one
gender in favour of another could not be allowed to infringe upon the fundamental
freedom to practice and profess one’s religion.
Click here
Critical Analysis of the Judgement

The lone woman on the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R F Nariman, Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice D Y
Chandrachud constituted the majority.
Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Dipak Misra while reading out portions of the judgement
written for himself and Justice A M Khanwilkar said that women are not lesser or inferior
to men. Religious patriarchy cannot be allowed to triumph over belief. Biological reasons
(such as menstruation) can not be accepted in freedom for faith. Religion is basically a
way of life.
The Judgement of the Chief Justice of India also held that Ayyappa devotees will not
constitute a separate religious denomination. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship (Authorization of Entry), Rules 1965 which prohibited entry of women in
Sabarimala, was also struck down as being unconstitutional.
The separate but concurring opinion of Justice Nariman held that “Anything destructive
of individuality in anachronistic of Constitutionality. To treat women as people of lower
status blinks at the Constitution itself”. It was held that Ayyappas do not constitute a
separate religious denomination.
Justice Chandrachud in his separate but concurring opinion held that the idea behind the
ban was that the presence of women will disturb virginity, and that was placing the
burden of men’s virginity on women. This stigmatises and stereotypes women, he
observed.
Justice Indu Malhotra, in her lone dissent, held that issues of deep religious sentiments
should not be ordinarily be interfered by the Court. The Court should not interrupt in this
matter unless if there is any resentful person from that section or religion. The notion of
rationality should not be seen in religious matters. She also held that shrine and the
deity are protected by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
Case Description and Status

The Apex Court has declared that the practice of restricting women of a specific age
group in their ‘menstruating years’ from entering Sabarimala Temple is unconstitutional.
Current Status of case: There are review petitions filed challenging the judgement
pending.
Conclusion
Freedoms related to religion are essential elements for the functioning of democracy in a
country like India. As we know, Constitutional ideals and Social reality are very different
from each other but it is also necessary to reduce the differences as much as possible for
the smooth and proper functioning of society. In the case of ‘Indian Young Lawyers
Association vs. State of Kerala & Ors’, Apex Court has tried to bridge the gap between
constitutional ideals and social reality.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on
practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life
practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and
various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal
content.
Did you find this blog post helpful? Subscribe so that you never miss another post! Just complete this
form…
Name
Email Address
10-6=?
SUBSCRIBE!
17th Sept - 19th Sept, 6 - 9 p.m IST (each day)
Free and online 3-Day Bootcamp on NCA exam for

Indian lawyers and law students who want to practice
in Canada - How to prepare?
Ramanuj Mukherjee CEO & Co-founder,
LawSikho
Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,
LawSikho
Register now
Name
Your Name
Email
Your Email
Which country are you from?
Select your country Select your country
Select your country

+91 - IN (India)
+376 - AD (Andorra)
+971 - AE (United Arab Emirates)
+93 - AF (Afghanistan)
+1268 - AG (Antigua And Barbuda)
+1264 - AI (Anguilla)
+355 - AL (Albania)
+374 - AM (Armenia)
+599 - AN (Netherlands Antilles)
+244 - AO (Angola)
+672 - AQ (Antarctica)
+54 - AR (Argentina)
+1684 - AS (American Samoa)
+43 - AT (Austria)
+61 - AU (Australia)
+297 - AW (Aruba)
+994 - AZ (Azerbaijan)
+387 - BA (Bosnia And Herzegovina)
+1246 - BB (Barbados)
+880 - BD (Bangladesh)
+32 - BE (Belgium)
+226 - BF (Burkina Faso)
+359 - BG (Bulgaria)
+973 - BH (Bahrain)
+257 - BI (Burundi)
+229 - BJ (Benin)
+590 - BL (Saint Barthelemy)
+1441 - BM (Bermuda)
+673 - BN (Brunei Darussalam)
+591 - BO (Bolivia)
+55 - BR (Brazil)
+1242 - BS (Bahamas)
+975 - BT (Bhutan)
+267 - BW (Botswana)
+375 - BY (Belarus)
+501 - BZ (Belize)
+1 - CA (Canada)
+61 - CC (Cocos (keeling) Islands)
+243 - CD (Congo, The Democratic Republic Of
The)
+236 - CF (Central African Republic)
+242 - CG (Congo)
+41 - CH (Switzerland)
+225 - CI (Cote D Ivoire)
+682 - CK (Cook Islands)
+56 - CL (Chile)
+237 - CM (Cameroon)
+86 - CN (China)
+57 - CO (Colombia)
+506 - CR (Costa Rica)
+53 - CU (Cuba)
+238 - CV (Cape Verde)
+61 - CX (Christmas Island)
+357 - CY (Cyprus)
+420 - CZ (Czech Republic)

+49 - DE (Germany)
+253 - DJ (Djibouti)
+45 - DK (Denmark)
+1767 - DM (Dominica)
+1809 - DO (Dominican Republic)
+213 - DZ (Algeria)
+593 - EC (Ecuador)
+372 - EE (Estonia)
+20 - EG (Egypt)
+291 - ER (Eritrea)
+34 - ES (Spain)
+251 - ET (Ethiopia)
+358 - FI (Finland)
+679 - FJ (Fiji)
+500 - FK (Falkland Islands (malvinas))
+691 - FM (Micronesia, Federated States Of)
+298 - FO (Faroe Islands)
+33 - FR (France)
+241 - GA (Gabon)
+44 - GB (United Kingdom)
+1473 - GD (Grenada)
+995 - GE (Georgia)
+233 - GH (Ghana)
+350 - GI (Gibraltar)
+299 - GL (Greenland)
+220 - GM (Gambia)
+224 - GN (Guinea)
+240 - GQ (Equatorial Guinea)
+30 - GR (Greece)
+502 - GT (Guatemala)
+1671 - GU (Guam)
+245 - GW (Guinea-bissau)
+592 - GY (Guyana)
+852 - HK (Hong Kong)
+504 - HN (Honduras)
+385 - HR (Croatia)
+509 - HT (Haiti)
+36 - HU (Hungary)
+62 - ID (Indonesia)
+353 - IE (Ireland)
+972 - IL (Israel)
+44 - IM (Isle Of Man)
+964 - IQ (Iraq)
+98 - IR (Iran, Islamic Republic Of)
+354 - IS (Iceland)
+39 - IT (Italy)
+1876 - JM (Jamaica)
+962 - JO (Jordan)
+81 - JP (Japan)
+254 - KE (Kenya)
+996 - KG (Kyrgyzstan)
+855 - KH (Cambodia)
+686 - KI (Kiribati)
+269 - KM (Comoros)
+1869 - KN (Saint Kitts And Nevis)
+850 - KP (Korea Democratic Peoples Republic
Of)
+82 - KR (Korea Republic Of)
+965 - KW (Kuwait)
+1345 - KY (Cayman Islands)
+7 - KZ (Kazakstan)
+856 - LA (Lao Peoples Democratic Republic)
+961 - LB (Lebanon)
+1758 - LC (Saint Lucia)
+423 - LI (Liechtenstein)
+94 - LK (Sri Lanka)
+231 - LR (Liberia)
+266 - LS (Lesotho)
+370 - LT (Lithuania)
+352 - LU (Luxembourg)
+371 - LV (Latvia)
+218 - LY (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
+212 - MA (Morocco)
+377 - MC (Monaco)
+373 - MD (Moldova, Republic Of)
+382 - ME (Montenegro)
+1599 - MF (Saint Martin)
+261 - MG (Madagascar)
+692 - MH (Marshall Islands)
+389 - MK (Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav
Republic Of)
+223 - ML (Mali)
+95 - MM (Myanmar)
+976 - MN (Mongolia)
+853 - MO (Macau)
+1670 - MP (Northern Mariana Islands)
+222 - MR (Mauritania)
+1664 - MS (Montserrat)
+356 - MT (Malta)
+230 - MU (Mauritius)
+960 - MV (Maldives)
+265 - MW (Malawi)
+52 - MX (Mexico)
+60 - MY (Malaysia)
+258 - MZ (Mozambique)
+264 - NA (Namibia)
+687 - NC (New Caledonia)
+227 - NE (Niger)
+234 - NG (Nigeria)
+505 - NI (Nicaragua)
+31 - NL (Netherlands)
+47 - NO (Norway)
+977 - NP (Nepal)
+674 - NR (Nauru)
+683 - NU (Niue)
+64 - NZ (New Zealand)
+968 - OM (Oman)
+507 - PA (Panama)
+51 - PE (Peru)
+689 - PF (French Polynesia)

+675 - PG (Papua New Guinea)
+63 - PH (Philippines)
+92 - PK (Pakistan)
+48 - PL (Poland)
+508 - PM (Saint Pierre And Miquelon)
+870 - PN (Pitcairn)
+1 - PR (Puerto Rico)
+351 - PT (Portugal)
+680 - PW (Palau)
+595 - PY (Paraguay)
+974 - QA (Qatar)
+40 - RO (Romania)
+381 - RS (Serbia)
+7 - RU (Russian Federation)
+250 - RW (Rwanda)
+966 - SA (Saudi Arabia)
+677 - SB (Solomon Islands)
+248 - SC (Seychelles)
+249 - SD (Sudan)
+46 - SE (Sweden)
+65 - SG (Singapore)
+290 - SH (Saint Helena)
+386 - SI (Slovenia)
+421 - SK (Slovakia)
+232 - SL (Sierra Leone)
+378 - SM (San Marino)
+221 - SN (Senegal)
+252 - SO (Somalia)
+597 - SR (Suriname)
+239 - ST (Sao Tome And Principe)
+503 - SV (El Salvador)
+963 - SY (Syrian Arab Republic)
+268 - SZ (Swaziland)
+1649 - TC (Turks And Caicos Islands)
+235 - TD (Chad)
+228 - TG (Togo)
+66 - TH (Thailand)
+992 - TJ (Tajikistan)
+690 - TK (Tokelau)
+670 - TL (Timor-leste)
+993 - TM (Turkmenistan)
+216 - TN (Tunisia)
+676 - TO (Tonga)
+90 - TR (Turkey)
+1868 - TT (Trinidad And Tobago)
+688 - TV (Tuvalu)
+886 - TW (Taiwan, Province Of China)
+255 - TZ (Tanzania, United Republic Of)
+380 - UA (Ukraine)
+256 - UG (Uganda)
+1 - US (United States)
+598 - UY (Uruguay)
+998 - UZ (Uzbekistan)
+39 - VA (Holy See (vatican City State))

+1784 - VC (Saint Vincent And The Grenadines)
+58 - VE (Venezuela)
+1284 - VG (Virgin Islands, British)
+1340 - VI (Virgin Islands, U.s.)
+84 - VN (Viet Nam)
+678 - VU (Vanuatu)
+681 - WF (Wallis And Futuna)
+685 - WS (Samoa)
+381 - XK (Kosovo)
+967 - YE (Yemen)
+262 - YT (Mayotte)
+27 - ZA (South Africa)
+260 - ZM (Zambia)
+263 - ZW (Zimbabwe)
No results
Phone
Your Phone
I want to know more about the lawsikho courses
Yes
No
Register now
Bootcamp starting in
4
Days
23
HRS
59
MIN
42
SEC
Ramanuj Mukherjee CEO & Co-founder,
LawSikho
Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,
LawSikho

Indian Young Lawyers Association &amp; Ors. vs. The State of Kerala &amp; Ors. (2018)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indian Young Lawyers Association &amp; Ors. vs. The State of Kerala &amp; Ors. (2018)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/12/22, 6:00 PM Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.

Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs.

Image source - https://bit.ly/36BfMIu

Identification of Parties (including the name of the

Petitioner(s): Indian Young Lawyers Association; Dr Laxmi Shastri; Prerna Kumari;

Respondent(s): The State of Kerala; Travancore Devaswom Board; Chief Tanthri of

Petitioner’s Lawyers: R.P. Gupta; Raja Ramachandran (Amicus Curiae); K.

Respondent’s Lawyer: Jaideep Gupta; Liz Mathew; Venugopal, (Travancore

Issues before the Court

Whether the Sabarimala Temple has a denominational character?

Arguments by Parties on Issues

Arguments in favour of women entry

This restriction violates Article 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution:

Arguments against women entry

There is no violation of Article 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution as the

Judgement (Ratio decidendi and Obiter Dictum)

In this case, the Court ruled thus:

“Devotion can not be subjected to Gender Discrimination”.

Click here

Critical Analysis of the Judgement

Case Description and Status

17th Sept - 19th Sept, 6 - 9 p.m IST (each day)

Free and online 3-Day Bootcamp on NCA exam for

Ramanuj Mukherjee CEO & Co-founder,

Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,

Select your country

+420 - CZ (Czech Republic)

+689 - PF (French Polynesia)

+39 - VA (Holy See (vatican City State))

Ramanuj Mukherjee CEO & Co-founder,

Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,

You might also like

Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2018)

Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2018)