LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prohibition on women of a specific age group from entering the Sabarimala Temple is discriminatory and violates fundamental rights.
CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Constitutional Law, Religious Law
Case Name: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
Judgment Date: 13 October 2017
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 13 October 2017
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI., R. Banumathi, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can a temple prohibit women of a certain age from entering its premises based on custom and usage? The Supreme Court of India is set to delve into this contentious issue in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. This case examines the legality of the ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple in Kerala. The core question revolves around whether this practice violates the fundamental rights of women and the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India. The bench is composed of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi, and Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Case Background
The case originated as a public interest litigation (PIL) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought to challenge the ban on women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. This restriction is based on the temple’s customs and usage. The petitioners argued that this ban violates Articles 14, 15, 25, and 51A(e) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, prohibit discrimination, protect religious freedom, and promote harmony, respectively. They also challenged Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which allows for such restrictions based on custom and usage. The petitioners also requested guidelines for addressing inequality in religious practices at places of worship and for ensuring the safety of women pilgrims.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1965 | The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, and Rules were enacted. |
| 1993 | The High Court of Kerala upheld the practice of banning the entry of women above the age of 10 and below the age of 50 to trek the holy hills of Sabarimala in connection with the pilgrimage to the Sabarimala temple in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthpuram and Ors. |
| 2006 | Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 in the Supreme Court of India challenging the ban on women’s entry. |
| 13 November 2007 | The State of Kerala filed an affidavit asserting that the Government is not against any sort of discrimination towards women. |
| 05 February 2016 | The State of Kerala filed an additional affidavit stating that an erroneous stand was taken in the earlier affidavit dated 13.11.2007 and that the State supports the ban on women’s entry. |
| 13 October 2017 | The Supreme Court of India refers the matter to a larger bench. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Kerala had previously upheld the ban in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthpuram and Ors, stating that the restriction was in accordance with the temple’s age-old customs and did not violate Articles 15, 25, or 26 of the Constitution. The High Court also directed the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Government of Kerala to enforce the ban. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, decided that the matter should be referred to a larger bench to address the constitutional questions raised.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:
-
The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965: This Act aims to ensure that all sections and classes of Hindus can enter places of public worship. Section 3 of the Act states:
“Section 3. Places of public worship to be open to all section and classes of Hindus :- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law or any decree or order of court, every place of public worship which is open to Hindus generally or to any section or class thereof, shall be open to all sections and classes of Hindus; and no Hindu of whatsoever section or class shall, in any manner, be prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering such place of public worship, or from worshipping or offering prayers thereat, or performing any religious service therein, in the like manner and to the like extent as any other Hindu of whatsoever section or class may enter, worship, pray or perform:”
-
Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965: This section empowers authorities to make regulations for maintaining order and decorum in places of public worship. However, it also includes a proviso:
“Provided that no regulation made under this sub-section shall discriminate in any manner whatsoever, against any Hindu on the ground that he belongs to a particular or class.”
-
Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965: This rule states that women are not allowed to enter a place of public worship at such times when they are not allowed by custom and usage.
“Rule 3. The classes of persons mentioned here under shall not be entitled to offer worship in any place of public worship or bath in or use the water of any sacred tank, well, spring or water course appurtenant to a place of public worship whether situate within or outside precincts thereof, or any sacred place including a hill or hill lock, or a road, street or pathways which is requisite for obtaining access to the place of public worship-
(b) Women at such time during which they are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship .” - Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law.
- Article 15 of the Constitution of India: Prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
- Article 25 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
- Article 26 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
- Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India: Promotes harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that the ban on women’s entry is discriminatory and violates their fundamental rights. They contended that:
- The exclusionary practice based on a biological factor specific to women amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution.
- The practice of excluding women does not constitute an essential religious practice under Article 25.
- Sabarimala Temple is not a separate religious denomination and cannot claim protection under Article 26.
- Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, is ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, and the Constitution.
- The ban on women is not based on any religious custom or usage in the Hindu religion, especially in the Pampa river region.
- The right to enter a temple for worship is a fundamental right under Article 25.
- The concept of morality under Articles 25 and 26 must be interpreted as constitutional morality and not based on varying religious practices.
- The State has a duty to ensure the enjoyment of fundamental rights and should not uphold discriminatory practices.
The respondents, including the State of Kerala and the Travancore Devaswom Board, defended the ban by arguing that:
- The practice is an essential religious practice protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
- The Ayyappa devotees constitute a religious denomination with the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
- The temple’s customs and usage have been followed for a long time and should be respected.
- The restriction is not discriminatory as it applies to a specific age group and not women as a class.
- The High Court of Kerala had already upheld the practice, and the matter should not be re-examined.
- The opinion of the priests (Thanthri) is final in matters of religious practice.
- Women between 10 and 50 years are not physically capable of observing the 41-day penance required for the pilgrimage.
The amici curiae presented arguments supporting both sides:
- One amicus curiae argued that the restriction is based on religious practice and should not be set aside.
- The other amicus curiae argued that the right of a woman to enter a temple is a fundamental right and that the restriction is discriminatory.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Discrimination and Violation of Fundamental Rights | Exclusion based on biological factors is discriminatory. | Petitioners |
| Violates Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution. | Petitioners | |
| Restriction infringes on the right to worship under Article 25. | Petitioners | |
| The State has a duty to protect fundamental rights. | Petitioners | |
| Essential Religious Practice | The practice is an essential religious practice under Article 25. | Respondents |
| Ayyappa devotees form a religious denomination under Article 26. | Respondents | |
| Customs and usage should be respected. | Respondents | |
| The opinion of the priests is final in matters of religious practice. | Respondents | |
| Constitutional Morality | Morality should be interpreted as constitutional morality. | Petitioners |
| Practices should align with Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, 38, and 51A. | Petitioners | |
| Validity of Rule 3(b) | Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the Act and the Constitution. | Petitioners |
| Rule 3(b) is protected under Articles 25 and 26(b). | Respondents | |
| Res Judicata | High Court decision operates as res judicata. | Respondents |
| The Supreme Court can re-examine the High Court decision. | Petitioners |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the exclusionary practice based on a biological factor specific to the female gender amounts to “discrimination” and thereby violates Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution, and is not protected by ‘morality’ as used in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution?
- Whether the practice of excluding such women constitutes an “essential religious practice” under Article 25, and whether a religious institution can assert a claim in that regard under the umbrella of the right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion?
- Whether Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character, and if so, is it permissible on the part of a ‘religious denomination’ managed by a statutory board and financed under Article 290-A of the Constitution of India out of the Consolidated Fund of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to indulge in such practices violating constitutional principles/morality embedded in Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a), and 51-A(e)?
- Whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules permits a ‘religious denomination’ to ban the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years? And if so, would it not violate Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution by restricting the entry of women on the ground of sex?
- Whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, is ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, and if treated to be intra vires, whether it will be violative of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Approach |
|---|---|
| Whether the exclusionary practice is discriminatory? | The Court acknowledged the issue of discrimination based on biological factors specific to women and its potential violation of Articles 14, 15, and 17. |
| Whether the practice is an essential religious practice? | The Court questioned whether the exclusion of women constitutes an essential religious practice under Article 25 and if a religious institution can claim such a right. |
| Whether Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character? | The Court raised the question of whether the Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character and if so, whether it can violate constitutional principles. |
| Whether Rule 3 permits a ban on women’s entry? | The Court questioned whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules permits a ban on women’s entry and if such a ban would violate Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution. |
| Whether Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the Act and the Constitution? | The Court questioned whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 is ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 and also if it violates Part III of the Constitution. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the court:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakhshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [1954 SCR 1005] | Supreme Court of India | Essential part of religion | Referred to by the petitioners to contend that what is protected under Article 26(b) is only the ‘essential part’ of religion. |
| Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali [(1962) 1 SCR 383] | Supreme Court of India | Rights of religious denomination | Referred to by the petitioners to contend that clauses (c) and (d) of Article 26 do not create any new right in favour of religious denomination but only safeguards their rights. |
| Sri Venkatramana Devaru & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors. [(1958) SCR 895] | Supreme Court of India | Restriction of entry to temples | Referred to by the petitioners to argue that religious denomination cannot completely exclude the members of any community and may only restrict their entry in certain rituals. |
| Sastri Yagnapurushadji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya and Anr [1966 3 SCR 242] | Supreme Court of India | Right of entry to temples | Referred to by the petitioners to contend that the right of entry is claimed for worship for the purposes of “darshan” and hence, is a part of the fundamental right under Article 25. |
| Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of U.P. [1997 (4) SCC 606] | Supreme Court of India | Right to manage religious affairs | Referred to by the petitioners to contend that the right to manage the affairs in the matter of religion does not encompass the right to ban entry inside a temple. |
| A.S. Naryana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P. [1996 (9) SCC 548] | Supreme Court of India | Right to manage religious affairs | Referred to by the petitioners to contend that the right to manage the affairs in the matter of religion does not encompass the right to ban entry inside a temple. |
| Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and Ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. [AIR 2016 SC 209] | Supreme Court of India | Constitutional legitimacy | Referred to by the petitioners to argue that constitutional legitimacy supersedes all religious beliefs and, therefore, prohibition on entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years plays foul of the constitutional principle. |
| Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar [(1956) SCR 756] | Supreme Court of India | Entry to public temples | Referred to by the amicus curiae to contend that the entry to a public temple is a legal right and not a permissible right. |
| Sri Radhakanta Deb v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa [(1981) 2 SCC 226] | Supreme Court of India | Entry to public temples | Referred to by the amicus curiae to contend that the entry to a public temple is a legal right and not a permissible right. |
| Nar Hari v. Badri Nath Temple Committee [(1952) SCR 849] | Supreme Court of India | Entry to public temples | Referred to by the amicus curiae to contend that the entry to a public temple is a legal right and not a permissible right. |
| Manoj Narula v. Union of India [(2014) 9 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Constitutional Morality | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that the concept of morality has to be based on the constitutional text. |
| National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India [(2014) 5 SCC 438] | Supreme Court of India | Constitutional Morality | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that the concept of morality has to be based on the constitutional text. |
| State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and others [(2005) 8 SCC 534] | Supreme Court of India | Constitutional Morality | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that the concept of morality has to be based on the constitutional text. |
| Bennet Coleman & Co. and others v. Union of India and others [(1972) 2 SCC 788] | Supreme Court of India | Impact Test | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that the “impact test” has to be applied to declare the rule and the notification to be unconstitutional. |
| S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and others [(1989) 2 SCC 574] | Supreme Court of India | State’s duty to protect fundamental rights | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that the State has a duty to ensure the enjoyment of fundamental rights. |
| Ram Jethmalani and others v. Union of India and others [(2011) 8 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | State’s duty to protect fundamental rights | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that the State has a duty to ensure the enjoyment of fundamental rights. |
| M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others [(2006) 8 SCC 212] | Supreme Court of India | State’s duty to protect fundamental rights | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that the State has a duty to ensure the enjoyment of fundamental rights. |
| Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another [(2007) 3 SCC 720] | Supreme Court of India | Re-examination of earlier decisions | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that when there is violation of a fundamental right, the Court can proceed to re-examine the earlier decision. |
| Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India and another [(2008) 5 SCC 287] | Supreme Court of India | Constitutional validity of statutes | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that a statute which may be upheld as constitutional at one point of time can become unconstitutional at a later point of time. |
| Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana and others [(1986) 2 SCC 249] | Supreme Court of India | Constitutional validity of statutes | Referred to by the amicus curiae to argue that a statute which may be upheld as constitutional at one point of time can become unconstitutional at a later point of time. |
| Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa [AIR 1964 SC 1501] | Supreme Court of India | Rights of religious denomination | Referred to by the respondents to argue that Ayyappa devotees form a denomination by themselves and have every right to regulate and manage its own affairs in matters of religion. |
| S.P. Mittal v. Union of India and others [(1983) 1 SCC 51] | Supreme Court of India | Essential part of religion | Referred to by the respondents to argue that whether any practice is an integral part of the religion or not has to be decided on the basis of evidence. |
| Tilkayat Shri Gvindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan and others [(1964) 1 SCR 561] | Supreme Court of India | Essential part of religion | Referred to by the respondents to argue that whether any practice is an integral part of the religion or not has to be decided on the basis of evidence. |
| Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay and Others [AIR 1954 SC 388] | Supreme Court of India | Management of religious affairs | Referred to by the respondents to argue that the right of management given to a religious body is a guaranteed fundamental right which no legislature can take away. |
| Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2014) 5 SCC 752] | Supreme Court of India | Religious denomination | Referred to by the respondents to argue that the question as to whether a set of persons constitute a religious denomination is a mixed question of fact and law and should be decided by a competent civil court after examination of documentary and other evidence. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court did not deliver a final judgment in this case, but referred the matter to a larger bench. However, it did analyze the submissions and authorities presented by the parties.
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The exclusionary practice based on biological factors is discriminatory. | The Court acknowledged the issue and framed it as a key question for the larger bench. |
| The practice is an essential religious practice. | The Court questioned whether the practice constitutes an essential religious practice under Article 25. |
| Ayyappa devotees form a religious denomination. | The Court raised the question of whether the Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character. |
| Rule 3 permits a ban on women’s entry. | The Court questioned whether Rule 3 permits a ban on women’s entry and if such a ban would violate Articles 14 and 15(3). |
| Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the Act and the Constitution. | The Court questioned whether Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the Act and the Constitution. |
| High Court decision operates as res judicata. | The Court did not accept the argument of res judicata and decided to refer the matter to a larger bench. |
The Court also analyzed the authorities cited by the parties:
- The Court considered the cases cited by the petitioners to argue that the right to enter a temple is a fundamental right under Article 25 and that the exclusionary practice is discriminatory.
- The Court considered the cases cited by the respondents to argue that the practice is an essential religious practice protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
- The Court considered the cases cited by the amicus curiae to argue that the concept of morality has to be based on the constitutional text.
Decision
The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, decided that the matter should be referred to a larger bench. The Court held that the case raises substantial questions of law that require a more detailed examination, especially concerning the interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. The Court felt that the issues involved were of significant public importance and needed to be addressed by a larger bench with a more comprehensive understanding of the constitutional and religious aspects of the matter.
Flowchart
Conclusion
The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. is a landmark case that delves into the complex interplay between religious customs, fundamental rights, and constitutional principles. The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench underscores the significance of the issues involved and the need for a thorough examination of the legal and constitutional questions raised. The case highlights the ongoing debate about gender equality and religious freedom in India and its implications for the rights of women in religious practices.