The Sabarimala temple case, formally known as Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, was a landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision addressing the prohibition on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The Supreme Court examined whether this prohibition violated women's fundamental rights to equality under Articles 14, 15, and 17, and freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court also considered if Article 25’s protection of religious freedom permits restrictions based on biological factors unique to women, such as menstruation, and whether the Sabarimala temple is a denominational temple entitled to manage its religious practices independently under Article 26.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
• The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala’s Periyar Tiger Reserve requires devotees to abstain from material possessions for 41 days as part of a rite, and bans women of childbearing age from entering to preserve the deity’s chastity.
• The Kerala High Court upheld this exclusion in the case of S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, ruling it constitutional and appropriate.
• In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged the temple's ban on women in the Supreme Court, arguing it violated Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) and Article 14 (Right to Equality).
• The Supreme Court issued notices on August 18, 2006, and referred the case to a three-judge bench on March 7, 2008.
• The case was reheard on January 11, 2016, and on February 20, 2017, the Court decided to refer it to a Constitution Bench.
• On October 13, 2017, a five-judge Constitution Bench was appointed to decide the case by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.
FACTS OF THE CASE
• A writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution has been filed in the Supreme Court of India.
• The petition challenges the prohibition of women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.
• The Sabarimala Temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, a deity believed to be born from the union of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu (Mohini).
• The temple is unique as it is said that Lord Ayyappa instructed King Rajasekara of Pandalam to build the temple at Sabarimala.
• Devotees must observe a 41-day Vratham (penance) that involves strict rules like abstaining from physical relations, cooking their own food, and living in isolation.
• The Vratham is believed to ensure purity, which the temple authorities claim women cannot maintain due to their menstrual cycle.
• Another reason for the prohibition is the belief that Lord Ayyappa, a celibate deity, could have his celibacy disturbed by the presence of women.
• The petition argues that these prohibitions may violate Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution and questions whether they are justified under the term ‘morality’ in Articles 25 and 26.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the exclusion of women based on a unique biological factor is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 15 and 17 and is not protected by morality under Articles 25 of the Indian constitution?
2. Whether the practice of excluding such women constituted an “essential religious practice” under Article 25 and whether a religious institution could assert a claim in that regard to managing its own affairs in religious matters?
3. Whether the Ayyappa Temple is a religious denomination under Art 26 of the Indian constitution?
4. Whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules is unconstitutional to prohibit women aged 10 to 50 years from entering the temple?
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER
- The exclusion of women aged 10-50 from temples lacks constitutional justification, creating an unjustified excluded class.
- The practice discriminates based on sex, violating Article 15(2)(b) as the temple is a public place.
- Section 3 and Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act, 1956, conflict with the Indian Constitution’s Part III.
- Excluding women implies menstruation is impure, violating Article 17, which seeks to abolish untouchability.
- Article 25 guarantees women the right to enter temples for worship, which cannot be restricted by the state under Article 25(2)(b).
- Lord Ayyappa does not constitute a religious denomination under Article 26, and the ban on women is not a fundamental religious practice.
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT
- The exclusion of women from the temple does not breach Article 15 because it targets a specific group rather than the entire class of women. All devotees are known as Ayyappans, and eligible female devotees are called Malikapurams.
- Rule 3(b) is not unconstitutional since it only restricts women of a certain age group for specific reasons and does not bar all women. Additionally, women can visit other temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.
- Article 17 aims to eliminate untouchability based on caste within Hinduism, and the temple does not practice caste-based untouchability.
- Article 25(2)(b) requires no caste-based discrimination, but it does not necessarily invalidate religious customs that are integral to the practice of faith.
- The Kerala High Court, in Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, recognized the temple as a religious denomination, meaning it is governed by Article 26 and not subject to reform under Article 25.
JUDGEMENT
On September 28, 2018, the court ruled by a 4:1 majority that the ban on women entering the Sabarimala Temple was unconstitutional, as it breached fundamental rights to equality, liberty, and freedom of religion under Articles 14, 15, 17, 19(1), 21, and 25(1).
Former Chief Justice Dipak Misra emphasized that any regulations undermining the dignity of women would be invalidated for violating Articles 14 and 15. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that excluding women based on menstrual status was akin to untouchability and could not be justified by societal notions of "purity and pollution" or constitutional morality, which Article 17 explicitly prohibits.
The court clarified that "morality" in Article 25 refers to constitutional morality rather than societal or individual views. Therefore, any infringement of fundamental rights cannot be defended by personal or social morality and is not protected under Article 25.
The court determined that Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Religion to all individuals, regardless of gender or sex. Thus, practices that prevent women from entering the Sabarimala temple infringe upon their right to visit a public temple, freely practice Hinduism, and express their devotion to Lord Ayyappa. Allowing women access to the temple would not alter the core tenets of Hinduism.
Additionally, the court found that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not qualify as a separate religious denomination under Article 26. The exclusion of women was not supported by any scriptural or literary evidence as a significant religious practice.
The court also ruled that Rule 3(b) of the KHPW Rules was unconstitutional because it violated Part III of the Indian Constitution and was inconsistent with the KHPW Act’s objective of making public Hindu places accessible to everyone.
Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole dissenting judge, arguing that the court should generally avoid intervening in deeply religious matters. She believed that rationality should not be applied to religious affairs, and that Article 25 protects the temple. Justice Malhotra also considered the temple to be a religious denomination and disagreed that the practice was discriminatory under Article 17, suggesting instead that the exclusion aimed to preserve the temple's purity.
CONCLUSION
The Sabarimala case refers to the legal battle over the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, India, which was traditionally restricted. The key ruling came from the Supreme Court of India on September 28, 2018. The Court's conclusion was that the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the temple was unconstitutional, violating the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 17 (abolition of untouchability) of the Indian Constitution.
The judgment emphasized that the practice of excluding women was discriminatory and not in line with modern constitutional values. However, the decision led to significant debate and resistance, and the implementation of the ruling faced practical challenges and ongoing controversies in the years following.
Post a Comment