Indian Young Lawyers Association Case (2018)
– Sabarimala Temple Entry
Background of the Case
The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala had a long-standing practice of:
- Prohibiting the entry of women between 10–50 years of age
- The justification was linked to the celibate (Naishtika Brahmachari) nature of Lord Ayyappa
This exclusion was enforced through → Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965
The practice was challenged as being:
→ Discriminatory
→ Violative of women’s dignity and equality
Core Constitutional Questions
- Can a religious practice exclude women based on biological factors?
- Do such exclusions violate Articles 14, 21, and 25?
- Is the practice an “essential religious practice” protected under Article 25?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
A five-judge Constitution Bench, by majority, delivered a transformative verdict.
(a) Ban on Women’s Entry Declared Unconstitutional
The Court held that:
- The exclusion of women aged 10–50 years is:
- Based on biological characteristics
- Rooted in stereotypes and patriarchy
Such exclusion was declared unconstitutional.
(b) Violation of Article 14 – Equality
The Court ruled that:
- The ban creates an arbitrary and discriminatory classification
- It denies women equal access to public religious spaces
Hence, the practice violates Article 14.
(c) Violation of Article 21 – Dignity and Personal Liberty
The Court held that:
- Exclusion from worship affects → Dignity, Autonomy, Self-worth
Thus, Denial of entry violates the right to life with dignity under Article 21.
(d) Article 25 Cannot Override Fundamental Rights
The Court clarified that:
- Freedom of religion under Article 25 is:
- Subject to public order, morality, health, and
- Other Fundamental Rights
It held that:
- Sabarimala devotees do not constitute a separate religious denomination
- Therefore, exclusion cannot be justified as an essential religious practice
(e) Rule 3(b) Struck Down
Accordingly, the Court:
- Struck down Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules
- Declared that:
- Women of all ages are entitled to enter the Sabarimala temple
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Reaffirmed constitutional morality over social morality
- Applied gender equality to religious practices
- Strengthened the idea that → Faith cannot be a ground for discrimination
It also expanded the scope of Article 25 by subjecting it to equality and dignity.
Impact of the Judgement
- Widespread protests and hartals across Kerala
- Strong opposition from → Devotees and Temple authorities
- Attempts by women to enter the temple:
- Faced resistance
- Some were successful under police protection
Review and Reference to Larger Bench
- In November 2019, a five-judge Review Bench:
- Did not decide the issue finally
- Referred it to a larger bench
Subsequently:
- A nine-judge Constitution Bench was constituted
- To examine broader questions such as:
- Essential religious practices
- Scope of judicial review over religion
- Balance between equality and religious freedom
(The reference is still pending final adjudication.)
Place in Rights Jurisprudence
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Shayara Bano (2017) | Gender equality in personal law |
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Dignity and autonomy |
| Sabarimala (2018) | Equality vs religious exclusion |
Summary
The Sabarimala Case (2018) struck down the ban on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple as violative of Articles 14, 21, and 25, upheld constitutional morality, and asserted that religious freedom cannot justify gender discrimination.