The Sabarimala Case: A Summary

Case Details

Case Name: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006

Parties Involved:

Petitioner – 

1. Indian Young Lawyers Association

Respondent – 

1. Travancore Devaswom Board
2. Pandalam Royal Family
3. Chief Thanthri

Bench:

1. Justice Deepak Mishra
2. Justice A.N. Khanwilkar
3. Justice Rohintan Nariman
4. Justice Indu Malhotra
5. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Introduction

The Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, is an ancient temple located atop one of the 18 Sannidhanam mountains that make up the Western Ghats. It is situated in Kerala's Pathanamthitta district. The common belief is that Lord Ayyappa's asceticism, specifically his celibacy, is what gives him his powers. The pilgrims adopt the habit of celibacy both before and while on the journey. People who pray to Lord Ayyappa and profess faith in him are expected to adhere strictly to a set of rules called a "Vratham" for 41 days.

According to the Thantri of the temple, the Ayyapan community has followed the custom of forbidding women from entering and taking part in the 41-day penance ceremony, or "vratham," since the beginning of time. The Sabarimala god is represented by a Naishtika Brahmacharya. The 'vratham' requires the adherents to perform penance, wear black clothing and cut all links with their families. It is asserted that the presence of women would lead to a departure from the celibacy and austerity practised by the disciples. Due to their physiological characteristics, women have been prohibited from participating in this pilgrimage since they are deemed weak and unsuited for the challenging journey. Hindu custom holds that women are likewise considered impure while menstruating, so to maintain the sanctity of the temple, admission restrictions have been put in place for women between the ages of 10 and 50.

S Mahendran petitioned the Kerala High Court in 1990 to end the barring of women from entering the shrine. However, the Kerala High Court upheld the long-standing ban on women of a particular age bracket visiting the temple. The Indian Young Lawyers Association petitioned the Supreme Court on August 4, 2006, asking for permission for female devotees between the ages of 10 and 50 to enter Lord Ayyappan Temple in Sabarimala. The Supreme Court decided on September 28, 2018, to permit women to enter the Sabarimala temple. The concerns made by the petitioners and explored in the case will also be covered in this article. This judgement addressed several problems before reaching its conclusion.

Points Raised

The main points raised by the petitioner were that restrictions placed on women based on biological factors violate Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 17 (untouchability) and that any such behaviour that violates other mentioned rights cannot be covered by "morality" under Article 25. (freedom to practise and propagate religion).

Does the practice of excluding women qualify as an "essential religious practice" under Article 25? Can a religious institution assert that it has the right to regulate its affairs about religious matters?

Whether Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character, and if so, is it permissible for a "religious denomination" managed by a statutory board and funded by the Consolidated Fund of Kerala and Tamil Nadu under Article 290-A of the Constitution of India to engage in such practises that violate the moral and constitutional principles embodied in Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a), and 51-A(e)?

Is it permissible for a "religious denomination" to forbid access to women between the ages of 10 and 50 according to Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules? Or, if it does, does preventing women from entering based on sex violate Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution?

Petitioner’s Contentions

It was claimed that the practice of forbidding women from entering temples is not fundamental to Hinduism. Sabarimala cannot be considered a separate religious dominion because it is run by the Travancore Devaswom Board, which receives public subsidies. Because the "Shirur Mutt case," which outlines the requirements for a religious denomination, was mentioned by this court. Which are:

1. Owning its land
2. Possessing a unique identity
3. Having its group of adherents
4. Adopting its own set of practices and ideas
5. Having its administrative structure free from interference and oversight from outside sources.

These requirements are not entirely met in this instance; hence it cannot be considered a separate religious denomination.

It was also stated that it cannot be considered a custom that has existed forever because it was believed and there is proof that women were permitted to the Temple during the reign of the Travancore ruler.

On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that the restriction was more heavily founded on practical physiological considerations than on religious arguments, such as women's incapacity to traverse a treacherous path through mountains and forests throughout a 41-day exhausting journey. These justifications are absurd.

It was also stated that treating women as unclean because they menstruate and are unable to be touched during that time constitutes sexism against them and the practise of untouchability, both of which are expressly prohibited by our Fundamental Rights.

Additionally, Article 25 guarantees women's freedom of religion. Women feel devalued when their rights are restricted due to Lord Ayappa's celibate lifestyle.

Fundamental rights are violated by regulation 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules.

Arguments of the Respondent

As they are based on the beliefs and customs of the temple's deity, these limitations cannot be contested.

It was maintained that since the temple's Lord Ayappa is celibate, he ought to be treated like a human being. Lord Ayappa's right to privacy under Article 21 should also be respected because of who he is as a person.

It was suggested that the presence of women who are menstruation, or between the ages of 10 and 50, conflicts with the celibate nature of the Lord Ayappa.

Additionally, it was argued that women are not physically capable of undergoing a 41-day penance.

It was said that this taboo is the foundation of their faith and is crucial to their religion.

They further argued that religious institutions are not covered by Article 15(2).

Judgment

The court rendered a decision in favour of the petitioner by a 4:1 majority after carefully weighing all relevant factors.

Majority Opinion

In his ruling, Justice DY Chandrachud remarked that denying women the ability to worship represents their subordination. The exclusionary practice, which is based on "physiological considerations" that are not religious in character and suggests that women cannot preserve the "truth" and participate in the pilgrimage, is, according to him, a kind of social discrimination because it stigmatises and stereotypes them. According to Chandrachud, the basis for their exclusion is that they menstruate, which is unconstitutional. Any law that discriminates against or diminishes the dignity of women, according to Justice Mishra, must be repealed as a violation of Articles 14 and 15. The judges who made up the majority ruling viewed this exclusion of women as discriminatory under Article 25, which provides everyone with the same right to freely practise their faith regardless of sex. The petitioners, particularly the women's NGO "Happy to Bleed," query "Article 17," which has also been discussed. The practice of barring women from religious settings and rituals, because they menstruate and are deemed impure during that time, is prohibited by Article 17 and is no less discriminatory than labelling members of disadvantaged castes as untouchables. The judges' perspective broadens the scope of Article 17 and emphasises the need for the Constitution to avoid serving as a vehicle for the maintenance of patriarchy.

Women between the ages of ten and fifty should not be permitted in Sabarimala, according to the replies, since celibacy is the main requirement for all followers. In response to this argument, Justice Chandrachud held that if a religious activity is fundamental to a religion, the process of determining whether it is morally right under the Constitution is nullified. This could result in the continued existence of unethical and illegal conduct under the guise of religious freedom. Therefore, it is more crucial that "The test should assess whether the practice is constitutional or not, rather than whether the practice is needed or not." The Respondents failed to prove that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala is either a required component of religion or has been regularly practised over time, according to Chandrachud J., who made this determination at the threshold of the case. This is because there is no scriptural or literary support for this practice, therefore it is not conceivable to assert that allowing women access to Sabarimala would change the fundamental nature of Hinduism (paragraph 123). This exercise doesn't qualify as an "essential religious practice" because it appears to have only begun in 1950, making it impossible to refer to it as an "ageless practice" that has existed forever.

A separate denomination is required to have a set of different ideas, a unique name, and a shared organisation under Article 26. The two justices rule that the Sabarimala Temple does not represent a distinct "denomination" because it is open to everyone, including those of other faiths and Hindus, and it is one of several Lord Ayappa temples where women are permitted to worship. The fundamental rights chapter then applies to the Temple because it is managed by a statutory authority, according to Misra CJI and Khanwilkar J. (the Devaswom Board). According to Article 290-A of the Constitution, the state pays for it. The Sabarimala Temple's religious rituals are identical to those of all other Hindu temples. According to Justice Chandrachud, devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form separate religious denominations, and any custom or religious practice that violates women's dignity by barring them from a place of worship because of their physiology is illegal.

The proviso of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship(Authorisation of Entry) 1965 rule 3 has been determined to be in blatant conflict. The 1965 Act forbids discrimination against "any class" of Hindus in Section 3. Judges Misra, Nariman, and Chandrachud supported the argument that Hindu women between the ages of 10 and 50 do constitute a "class," and that the exclusionary practice stated previously constitutes "discrimination" based on sex. Women's exclusion undermines their dignity and runs against the core principles of the Constitution. Rule 3(b) of the aforementioned act, therefore, violates the 1965 Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship(Authorisation of Entry) Act. Along with Justices Misra, Khanwilkar, and Chandrachud, Justice Nariman deems it to be directly in violation of Article 15(1) and declares it unconstitutional. Giving the liberty of belief, faith, and worship its full meaning, equality in all issues—including religious concerns, the right to worship, and opportunity—was established by this verdict.

Dissenting Opinion

The sole female judge on the panel and the only one to express disagreement was Justice Indu Malhotra. She insisted that the exclusionary practice was in line with the beliefs of the "Ayappan" group and not in violation of Article 25, which provides everyone with the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate their faith by the teachings of their religion. She further added that the Ayappan group is a distinct religious sect that is safeguarded by Article 26 to conduct its religious affairs. According to her, this situation involves a mixed-up question of fact and law that needs to be resolved by a court with appropriate civil jurisdiction. According to Justice Malhotra, unless religious practices are extremely serious, logical judgement should not be applied to them and courts lack the authority to meddle in religiously personal affairs. She concluded that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is simply an exception for the benefit of the religious denomination and does not violate Section 3 of the 1965 Act. She said that because it is outside the purview of the court to rationalize religion, judicial evaluation of religious practices should not be handled by the court.

Sabarimala 2019 Review Petition

When the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that any woman, regardless of age, is permitted admission to the Sabarimala temple. A larger portion of the population was upset by the ruling because it interfered with their long-held religious beliefs and sentiments. They turned to submit review petitions in the Court since the verdict caused disturbance among the masculine section, right-wing, and religiously steadfast people and they did not particularly appreciate it. 

The petition was brought in opposition to the Supreme Court's 2018 decision, and the fundamental issue at hand was whether or not the Supreme Court had the authority to interfere and interpret questions of religion and faith. The petitioners in this case argued that the deity's celibacy nature is the basis for the temple's adoration. Constitutional morality is solely a matter of opinion; hence it shouldn't be applied to the interpretation of religious beliefs. It interferes with their freedom to exercise their religion in private. Because this notion was applied to the context without adequate thought and study, it was claimed that the untouchability idea that was raised in the 2018 judgement was incorrect. Since the issue of women's entry into the Sabarimala temple is not restricted but other issues along the same lines will also be impacted by this decision, the court decided to postpone consideration of the review petitions and to maintain the 2018 order granting women the right to enter the temple. Therefore, it would be prudent to reserve judgement for the time being. The court expressed dissatisfaction with how individuals responded and did not applaud the verdict. Instead of adhering to it, people became upset and utterly ignored it threatening the honour of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was established by our Constitution to protect and safeguard itself, and we must respect its dignity. According to the court's opinion, it is the right granted to the nation's citizens that if they are dissatisfied with the court's decision, they may file a review. However, in the interim, it is every citizen's responsibility to follow and accept whatever rules are set forth by the court.

Conclusion

This ruling is historic, particularly at a time when the nation is deeply divided along religious lines. In India, religion has a significant impact on how society is shaped. The ruling was progressive and demonstrated that patriarchy, dogma, and superstition would never be allowed to trample on the principles of constitutional morality. Although the court agreed to consider other concerns related to the petitions in the future, it upheld the same principle and did not revoke the rights granted to women in the 2018 judgement. The Supreme Court has so demonstrated that equality and morality are fundamental human rights that will always be safeguarded above all other principles.