Sabarimala Temple Entry: Supreme Court Upholds Women’s Right to Worship, Overrules Restrictions (2018) INSC 837 (28 September 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 837
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI; A.M. Khanwilkar, J; R.F. Nariman, J; D.Y. Chandrachud, J; Indu Malhotra, J (Majority Opinion by Dipak Misra, CJI, concurring opinion by R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud, J; Dissenting Opinion by Indu Malhotra, J)

Can a centuries-old tradition justify the exclusion of women from a place of worship? The Supreme Court of India addressed this fundamental question in a landmark judgment concerning the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. The Court, in a 4:1 majority, ruled that the temple’s practice of barring women of menstruating age (10 to 50 years) was unconstitutional, upholding the right of all women to enter and worship at the temple. The judgment is a powerful statement on gender equality and the primacy of constitutional values over discriminatory customs.

The core issue at hand was whether the Sabarimala Temple’s exclusionary practice, based on a biological factor specific to women, amounted to discrimination and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. The Court also examined if the exclusion of women constituted an essential religious practice under Article 25, and whether a religious institution could claim such a right under the umbrella of managing its own affairs in matters of religion under Article 26 of the Constitution.

Case Background

The case arose from a writ petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association seeking the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple. The temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, had a long-standing tradition of barring women between the ages of 10 and 50, purportedly to maintain the celibacy of the deity. This restriction was enforced through Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.

The matter was initially heard by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which referred the case to a larger Constitution Bench due to the complexity and significance of the issues involved. The three-judge bench took note of two affidavits filed by the Government of Kerala, which took contrary stands on the issue.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Kerala, in the 1993 case of S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, had upheld the ban on the entry of women of menstruating age at the Sabarimala Temple. The High Court had held that the restriction was in accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial and was not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in the present case, was called upon to consider the correctness of the High Court’s decision. The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench of five judges to determine the validity of the exclusionary practice.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
• Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• Article 17 of the Constitution, which abolishes untouchability.
• Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.
• Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
• Article 290A of the Constitution, which provides for annual payment to certain Devaswom Boards.
• Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, which mandates that places of public worship be open to all sections and classes of Hindus.
• Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which allows for the restriction of women’s entry to places of public worship based on custom and usage.

The Court emphasized that the right to practice religion under Article 25(1) is available to every person, including women, and that any exclusion based on gender or physiological factors is discriminatory. The Court also noted that Article 25(2)(b) allows the State to make laws for social reform, including the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The exclusionary practice is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution. It is based on a biological factor unique to women, which is not a valid basis for discrimination.
• The practice does not constitute an essential religious practice under Article 25. The exclusion of women is not fundamental to the Hindu religion.
• Sabarimala Temple does not have a denominational character and, therefore, cannot claim protection under Article 26. It is managed by a statutory board and funded by the State.
• Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires the 1965 Act and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
• The practice of excluding women casts a stigma on them, violates their dignity, and is a form of untouchability under Article 17.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Sabarimala Temple is a denominational temple with a unique character, and the exclusion of women is an essential part of its religious practice.
• The deity at Sabarimala is a “Naishtik Brahmachari” (eternal celibate), and the presence of women of menstruating age is believed to disrupt the deity’s celibacy and austerity.
• The practice of excluding women is based on custom and usage that has been followed since time immemorial.
• The restriction is not discriminatory as it is based on the physiological factor of menstruation, which is unique to women, and not on gender.
• Article 26 protects the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
• The term “morality” in Articles 25 and 26 should be interpreted in the context of religious morality, and not constitutional morality.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the exclusionary practice based on a biological factor specific to women amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 14, 15, and 17, and is not protected by “morality” as used in Articles 25 and 26?
2. Whether the practice of excluding women constitutes an “essential religious practice” under Article 25, and whether a religious institution can claim such a right under Article 26?
3. Whether the Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character, and if so, whether such a denomination can indulge in practices violating constitutional principles, especially when managed by a statutory board and financed by the State?
4. Whether Rule 3 of the 1965 Rules permits a religious denomination to ban entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50, and if so, whether it violates Articles 14 and 15(3)?
5. Whether Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires the 1965 Act, and if intra vires, whether it violates Part III of the Constitution?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied upon a number of authorities, including:

Judgment

The Court held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination. The Court also held that the exclusion of women of a particular age group is not an essential religious practice.

The Court further held that the exclusionary practice violates the fundamental right of women to freely practice their religion under Article 25(1) and that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires the 1965 Act.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The right to practice religion under Article 25(1) is a non-discriminatory right that is equally available to both men and women.
• The term “morality” in Article 25(1) refers to constitutional morality, not individual or sectional morality.
• The exclusionary practice is not an essential part of the Hindu religion and does not have unhindered continuity.
• Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires both Section 3 and Section 4 of the 1965 Act.

The Court also observed that the exclusionary practice cannot be justified on the grounds of health, public order, or morality.

Majority Opinion:
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, with concurring opinions by Justices R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud, held that the practice of excluding women between the ages of 10 and 50 from the Sabarimala Temple was unconstitutional. The majority declared that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules was ultra vires the 1965 Act, and violated Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Indu Malhotra delivered a dissenting opinion, holding that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a religious denomination, and that the practice of excluding women is an essential religious practice protected by Article 26 of the Constitution. She also stated that the Court should not interfere with the religious beliefs and practices of a community.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

The Court emphasized that the Constitution is supreme and that all laws and practices must be in conformity with its provisions. The Court also held that gender equality is a fundamental right and that any practice that discriminates against women is unconstitutional. The Court further clarified that an essential religious practice must be a core belief of the religion and not merely a custom or tradition. Finally, the Court noted that the Sabarimala Temple is a public temple and that all sections of Hindus have a right to worship there.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment can be summarized as follows:

• The exclusionary practice based on a biological factor specific to women is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution.
• The practice of excluding women between the ages of 10 and 50 does not constitute an essential religious practice under Article 25.
• Sabarimala Temple does not have a denominational character and is a public temple managed by a statutory board.
• Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires the 1965 Act and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
• The term “morality” in Articles 25 and 26 refers to constitutional morality, which includes dignity and equality for all.

Obiter Dicta

The obiter dicta in the judgment include the following observations:

• The right to practice religion under Article 25(1) is a non-discriminatory right that is equally available to both men and women.
• The State has a duty to ensure that all places of public worship are open to all sections of Hindus.
• The exclusionary practice cannot be justified on the grounds of health, public order, or morality.
• The Court’s decision is based on the principles of constitutional morality and gender equality.

Conclusion

The Sabarimala judgment is a landmark decision that has far-reaching implications for the rights of women in India. The Court’s decision is a powerful statement on gender equality and the primacy of constitutional values over discriminatory customs. The judgment has been hailed by women’s rights activists as a major victory for gender equality and has been criticized by some religious groups as an infringement on their religious freedom.

The judgment has been the subject of much debate and controversy in India. While the Court’s decision is binding on all parties, it has been met with resistance from some religious groups and has led to protests and violence. The judgment has also raised questions about the role of the judiciary in matters of religion and the relationship between religious freedom and gender equality.

The Sabarimala judgment is a reminder that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that all laws and practices must be in conformity with its provisions. The judgment is also a reminder that gender equality is a fundamental right and that any practice that discriminates against women is unconstitutional. The judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that all women in India have the right to freely practice their religion and to live with dignity and respect.

Impact of the Judgment

The judgment had several immediate and long-term impacts:

• Entry of Women: The immediate impact was that women of all ages were allowed to enter the Sabarimala Temple, which had been restricted for decades.
• Social and Political Reactions: The judgment led to widespread protests and social unrest, with some religious groups opposing the entry of women. There were also political debates and discussions about the role of the judiciary in matters of religion.
• Legal Precedent: The judgment set a significant legal precedent for gender equality and the interpretation of essential religious practices.
• Re-evaluation of Religious Practices: The judgment prompted a re-evaluation of other religious practices that discriminate against women, leading to demands for reform in other religious institutions.
• Constitutional Morality: The judgment emphasized the importance of constitutional morality, which includes dignity and equality, over traditional religious practices.

Further Developments

The Sabarimala case continues to evolve even after the 2018 judgment. Some notable developments include:

• Review Petitions: Several review petitions were filed against the judgment, which were later referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
• Larger Bench: The Supreme Court constituted a larger bench to re-examine the issues raised in the review petitions, including the scope of essential religious practices and the role of constitutional morality.
• Ongoing Legal Battle: The legal battle is still ongoing, with the larger bench yet to deliver a final verdict.
• Social Resistance: Despite the Supreme Court’s judgment, there continues to be social resistance to the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple.

Criticisms of the Judgment

The Sabarimala judgment has also faced criticism from various quarters:

• Interference in Religious Matters: Critics argue that the judiciary has interfered in matters of religion and that the Court should not have imposed its interpretation of religious practices.
• Disregard for Religious Beliefs: Some critics claim that the judgment disregarded the religious beliefs and practices of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa.
• Lack of Understanding of Religious Traditions: Critics argue that the judges did not have a proper understanding of the religious traditions and customs of the Sabarimala Temple.
• Social Unrest: The judgment led to social unrest and violence, which some critics say was a consequence of the Court’s decision.
• Dissenting Opinion: The dissenting opinion of Justice Indu Malhotra was cited by some critics as a valid counter-argument against the majority opinion.

Significance of the Judgment

Despite the criticisms and controversies, the Sabarimala judgment remains a significant milestone in the history of gender equality in India. Its significance lies in:

• Upholding Constitutional Principles: The judgment reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and upheld the principles of gender equality and non-discrimination.
• Challenging Discriminatory Practices: The judgment challenged discriminatory religious practices and customs that have historically excluded women.
• Empowering Women: The judgment empowered women to assert their rights and to demand equality in all spheres of life.
• Setting a Precedent: The judgment set a precedent for other cases involving gender equality and religious freedom.
• Promoting Social Reform: The judgment promoted social reform and encouraged a more inclusive and egalitarian society.

Conclusion

The Sabarimala Temple entry case is a complex and multifaceted issue that has raised fundamental questions about the relationship between religion, gender, and the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s judgment in 2018 was a landmark decision that upheld the rights of women to worship at the temple and challenged discriminatory practices. However, the judgment has also been the subject of much debate and controversy, and the legal battle is still ongoing. Despite the challenges, the Sabarimala case remains a significant milestone in the fight for gender equality in India and a reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional values.

This case serves as a poignant example of the ongoing struggle to balance religious freedom with the fundamental rights of all citizens, particularly women. It highlights the judiciary’s crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that all practices, including religious ones, adhere to the principles of equality and justice. The Sabarimala case will continue to be a subject of legal and social discourse for years to come, shaping the future of gender rights and religious freedom in India.