INDIAN YOUNG LAWYER ASSOCIATION & ORS. VS.

STATE OF
KERALA & ORS

1. DE-FACTO OF THE CASE:

The Sabarimala Temple is regarded as one of the most famous Hindu temples in India.
Lord Ayyappa is devoted as the main lord in the temple. The rules of the temple are made
such that women who develop menstruation (aged 10-50) should not be allowed on the
temple premises on grounds of the place of worship.

The tradition states that women under the menstruation period who enter the temple
would affect the value of chastity of the temple. The temple priests and their functions
were firm to believe that women should not be allowed to enter the temple during their
menstruating period.

The Indian Lawyer Association had filed a Public Interest Litigation1 in 2006 in the
Honourable Supreme court on the grounds of excluding women in the temple. The PIL
was filed on the violation of Article 142 and Article 253 of the Indian Constitution. The
court ruled in the case of “Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs. The State of
Kerala.4”, that the temple authorities & The Travancore Devaswom Board have the
absolute right on choosing the functioning of the temple.

Moreover, the Kerala Hindu Worship rules5 state that women can be excluded on basis of
the custom that has been followed for many centuries. The Judgment was also backed that
Article 266 provided that every religion has the right of managing its internal affairs.

Also, in the case of S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore7(1991), the court held
that the exclusion of women is constitutional and righteous. It added that the custom was
followed since its immemorial.

1
A Public Interest Litigation is a petition or such which is filed by a member of society on matters of public
interest, public injury, or such.
2
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14. Article 14 provides freedom for equality before the law.
3
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 25. Article 25 provides the freedom of conscience & religion.
4
Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors vs. The State of Kerala. Writ Petition (Civil) No 373 of 2006.
5
“Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (“Public
Worship Rules”)”
6
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 26.
7
S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore. AIR 1993 Ker 42
 The Issues were all finally phrased before the Hon. Apex court that

1. Whether the Article 14, 15, and 17 are being violated under the Indian Constitution on
the grounds of women being excluded based on their gender which amount to
discrimination, and are not being protected under the term “morality8” mentioned in
the Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
2. Whether the practice of barring these women as per Article 25 comprised "essential
religious practice norms," or whether a religious institution might establish a right
within this sense there under the protection of the freedom to govern its very own
activities in spiritual matters.
3. Whether Ayyappa Temple had a mainline protestant nature, and if so, has it been a
religious dominant run by a regulatory agency and funded by the “Kerala and Tamil
Nadu Consolidated Fund” to breach democratic moral standards under the
Constitution? and
4. Whether the “Rule 3(b) of the KHPW Act, 1965” has violated the Part III of the
Indian Constitution or not?

The issues had gained momentum and were further taken to a higher bench in the Hon.
Supreme Court. The Matter went on for several years and the bench suggested a
Constitutional Bench for the reference of the case.

2. DECISION OF THE COURT

On 28th September 2018, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in a 4:1 verdict that
the exclusion of women under the ages of 10-50 will be unconstitutional. “The Rule 3(b)
of the KPHW Act” was also struck down on the basis of not allowing into the temple on
grounds of gender and physiological problems.

The court opined those followers of Lord Ayyappa Swamy did not represent a distinct
religious sect, but rather were members of the Hindu community and that the barring of

8
Morality defines that all persons should be treated equally to perform their belief/ religion and has a right to
practice or profess the religion.
 women under the menstruation cannot be deemed an important religious practice in the
lack of religious text establishing it.

The Hon. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud opined that the exclusion of women based on their
menstruation cannot be termed as a reasonable restriction9. It clearly violates the Article
17, in which women are restricted to visit the temple premises.

3. ON THE GROUNDS OF ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE

The Supreme Court had re-instated its bearing on the term “Essential Religious Practice10”,
which was laid down under Article 25. To testify to the norm or belief of the religious
practice, the court goes through the religious text and sayings of old priests to check the
originality of the said practice 11. The Temple authorities contended the practices of Lord
Ayyappa had been existing in the text of Shtal Purana of the temple. The texts mention that
the exclusion of women has only been implemented as a religious practice and it has been
followed since the ancient.

But the majority in the judgment stated that the non-allowance of women into the temple is
not an essential practice. The court also opined that this custom had only been followed since
1950, and lacks any evidence or ageless character of an “essential religious practice” 12.
Since there was no consistency in following this practice of not allowing women, the
argument stated by the Temple board was not established.

Dissenting Opinion: The Essential religious practice can be practiced by the Hon.
Supreme Court. The exclusion of following the norms has been consistent for many decades.
Though the practice had been laid earlier in the 1950s. The practice had not only been
followed by the temple authorities but the Hindu women are not willing to visit the temple
during their menstruation period.

9
Writ Petition (Civil) No 373 of 2006
10
The Durgah Committee, Ajmer ... vs Syed Hussain Ali and Others on 17 March 1961. [online] Available at:
<https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1262157/> [Accessed 16 June 2022].
11
Mustafa, F., 2018. Ayodhya case: Understanding the ‘essentiality doctrine’ and its implications. [online] The
Indian Express. Available at: <https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/ayodhya-case-supreme-court-
verdict-mosque-integral-to-islam-ismail-faruqui-judgement-5377466/> [Accessed 15 June 2022].
12
Para 125, Writ Petition (Civil) No 373 of 2006
Swami Ayyappa is a Naishtika Brahmachari or a celibate. It is their general nature that the
temple is not allowed for women from age 10-50. In the said judgment, the court opined that
it is essential for women to enter the temple as devotees but Sabarimala does not. Here, it is
customary for women to not enter the temple premise during their menstruation period.
Generally, women do not enter any of the temples even if it was a Hindu Temple.

In the Puranas, The Concept of Holiness is strictly followed in the Hindu Religion. Article
26 provides the freedom to manage religious affairs. Whenever a woman enters the temple
during their menstruation, the place becomes impure & unholy. Looking at the Public Interest
of the People, the customary has been followed for many centuries and it is not aged still.
There are several norms and cultures which are ageless in any religion.

4. ON THE GROUNDS OF WHETHER IS VIOLATED FOR ARTICLE 14 &

ARTICLE 25.

The Article 14 & 25 are regarded as the crucial combats in this Judgment.

The Petitioners argued that the exclusion of women will be a violation of Article 14 of
Constitution and also contend that “the impugned practice is violative of women’s freedom of
conscience and right to freely practice, profess and propagate religion under Article 25 of
the Constitution”

The Respondents argue that they only specify women under a certain age to follow the
customary practice and nothing is violative of Article 14. The Article 25 was not subject to
any reforms and women have the absolute right to follow their religious affairs.

The Majority in the court concluded that Article 14 and 25 are violative under the
Constitution. “To exclude women from worship by allowing the right to worship to men is to
place women in a position of subordination.”, the court stated. The Article 25 was also
violated as the court said that there was nothing to do with either the gender or physiological
factors of women as they have every right to practice their religion.

Dissenting Opinion: India is a place of diversity and culture. There is no such that or any
parameter to prove the essentiality of practices. The Limit is endless to prove such things in
our country. Post- the Judgment, the consequences have been disturbing to watch. If the faith
wants to exclude women in certain religious places, the religion has the inevitable right to
manage its affairs subjecting to reasonable restrictions.
There is no such restriction in the Puranas or by the temple authorities that does not allow
any women into the Sabarimala temple. Women are allowed into the temple excluding the
many who produce menstruation. There is no violation of Article 14 in the Constitution and
such non-allowance can be subjected to reasonable restrictions. The Constitution under
Article 26 also guarantees the religion to manage its own affairs, and the temple has the clear-
cut authority to put such restrictions on grounds of limited restriction.

5. Dissenting Opinion: JUDICIARY IN THE AFFAIR OF RELIGION

How far can the judiciary go to decide the validity of any particular religion? For Several
Years, the Judiciary can be seen giving its opinions on such various things. Having the
authority on proving the validity of religion can lead to far more consequences in the future 13.
The judiciary shall not entertain to decide any matter related to the religion and it is the
responsibility of the faith to ascertain their limits and customs 14.

In the case of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs The State Of Bombay15, the Supreme Court said
that “…a religious denomination or organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of
deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion
they hold, and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in
such matters”.

It was also held that in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India16, the court said that “It is
not for a court to determine whether religious practices were prudent or progressive or
regressive. Religion and Personal Law, must be perceived, as it is accepted by the followers
of the faith…”.

It is said that the “judicial activism should not become judicial overreach17”. By controlling
in the matters of religion by the Judiciary may lose faith in the court and can lead to
irreparable consequences.

13
Adelaide company of Jehovah’s Witness v. Commonwealth, HCA 12
(HCA:1943)
14
Mustafa, F., 2018. Ayodhya case: Understanding the ‘essentiality doctrine’ and its implications. [online] The
Indian Express. Available at: <https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/ayodhya-case-supreme-court-verdict-
mosque-integral-to-islam-ismail-faruqui-judgement-5377466/> [Accessed 15 June 2022].
15
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs The State Of Bombay, 1954 AIR 388
16
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1
17
“We Need Clean Air but Spare Us the Judicial&nbsp;Overreach.” The Wire,
https://thewire.in/environment/we-need-clean-air-but-spare-us-the-judicial-overreach.