Historical Background

The Sabarimala temple is one of the most prominent pilgrimage sites in India, located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghat mountain ranges of Kerala. It is dedicated to the Hindu deity Ayyappan. The temple is estimated to be over 1000 years old. The Sabarimala temple attracts over 50 million devotees each year, making it one of the largest annual pilgrimages in the world. It is open to worshippers of all faiths and backgrounds.

One of the longstanding traditions at Sabarimala was the restriction on the entry of women of menstruating age (generally defined as between 10 to 50 years old). This practice was justified on the grounds of preserving the temple’s sanctity and the belief that the presence of women of menstruating age would disrupt the ascetic practices of the male devotees.

In 1990, S. Mahendran filed a plea challenging the ban on women’s entry into the temple, arguing that it violated principles of equality and non-discrimination. However, the Kerala High Court dismissed the plea, upholding the temple’s traditional practices.

Subsequently, in 2006, another plea was filed by young Indian lawyers seeking to allow women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple. The case sparked significant debate and legal scrutiny regarding gender equality and religious practices.

On 28th September 2018, the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark verdict in the case, overturning the centuries-old ban and allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple. The Supreme Court’s decision was based on principles of gender equality and non-discrimination, emphasizing that religious practices cannot discriminate against women based on biological factors such as menstruation.

The verdict led to widespread celebrations among activists advocating for gender equality and women’s rights, while it also sparked protests and resistance from certain religious groups and traditionalists who argued that the court’s decision interfered with religious customs and beliefs.

In conclusion, the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple represents a significant milestone in India’s legal and social landscape, highlighting ongoing debates between religious freedom and individual rights, particularly concerning gender equality within religious traditions.

Introduction

The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala & Ors marks a significant legal battle that unfolded in India, revolving around the issue of women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Traditionally, the temple had barred women of menstruating age (between 10 to 50 years) from entering its premises, citing religious customs and the need to preserve the temple’s sanctity and ascetic traditions.

Initiated by the Indian Young Lawyers Association in 2006, the case challenged this age-old practice, asserting that it infringed upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, particularly the rights to equality and non-discrimination. The legal challenge sparked intense debates across the country, drawing passionate arguments from supporters advocating for gender equality and opponents defending religious traditions.

After a series of judicial proceedings and deliberations, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark verdict on 28th September 2018. The court’s decision overturned the ban on women’s entry into Sabarimala temple, affirming their right to worship without discrimination based on biological factors such as menstruation. The verdict was hailed as a significant step towards gender justice and equality under the law, while also prompting varied reactions and further debates on the balance between religious practices and constitutional rights in India.

The case remains pivotal in India’s legal discourse, illustrating the judiciary’s role in interpreting and safeguarding fundamental rights amid cultural and religious diversity.

Issues addressed:

1. Whether the prohibition on women’s entry into Sabarimala violated their fundamental rights to equality under Articles 14, 15, and 17, as well as freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.
2. Whether freedom of religion under Article 25 can allow restrictions based on biological factors exclusive to women, such as menstruation.
3. Whether the Sabarimala temple qualifies as a denominational temple with autonomy over its religious practices under Article 26.

Case facts:

The Sabarimala case revolves around the longstanding practice of barring women of menstruating age (generally 10-50 years old) from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. This custom was rooted in the belief that the presence of women of reproductive age could disrupt the celibate and ascetic environment of the temple, which is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.

The legal challenge began in 1990 when S. Mahendran filed a petition in the Kerala High Court seeking to lift the ban on women’s entry, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination under the Indian Constitution. Despite efforts, the Kerala High Court upheld the temple’s tradition, citing religious practices and beliefs.

In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association renewed the legal battle by filing a petition in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the exclusion of women from Sabarimala temple. The case gained national attention and sparked intense debates across various segments of society regarding gender equality, religious freedoms, and cultural traditions.

After extensive hearings and deliberations, on 28th September 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark verdict. The court ruled that the practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The judgment emphasized that religious beliefs and customs cannot override fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly the rights to equality and freedom of worship.

The Supreme Court’s decision was hailed as a significant step towards gender justice and equality in India. It marked a pivotal moment in the country’s legal history, highlighting the judiciary’s role in interpreting and safeguarding constitutional rights amid diverse religious practices and societal norms.

While the verdict was celebrated by proponents of gender equality and women’s rights, it also prompted protests and resistance from traditionalists and religious groups who viewed the ruling as interference in religious traditions. The Sabarimala case continues to resonate in legal and social discussions, underscoring the complexities of balancing religious freedoms with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.

The bench of judges who delivered the judgment comprised:

Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra

Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Justice Indu Malhotra

These judges constituted the majority decision of 4:1 where only justice Indu Malhotra authored a dissenting opinion, expressing concerns about judicial interference in matters of religious beliefs and practices. She argued that courts should not interfere unless there is a clear constitutional violation or harm to fundamental rights, and she believed that the restriction on women’s entry into Sabarimala was based on age-old religious beliefs and should be respected and the rest of the bench was in favor of allowing the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple, overturning the traditional practice that restricted the entry of women of menstruating age (10-50 years).

Judgement:

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India unequivocally declared that patriarchy within religious practices cannot override faith, emphasizing that barring women from entering the Sabarimala temple amounted to a form of “untouchability” prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution. The court asserted that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination, affirming women’s equal right to worship.

Applying a doctrinal prohibition test under Article 25, the court scrutinized whether the ban on women’s entry qualified as an essential religious practice. Finding no scriptural basis supporting such exclusion, the court concluded that the practice was not essential to the faith. It deemed the exclusion based on biological factors unconstitutional, emphasizing that physiological characteristics should not determine one’s rights to worship freely.

Moreover, the judgment invoked Articles 14, 15, and 21 to underscore that the ban violated principles of equality, non-discrimination, and liberty. The court stressed that customs and usages must evolve in accordance with constitutional morality, ensuring that religious practices adhere to principles of equality and social justice.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s progressive decision to lift the restrictive ban on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple was a significant stride towards gender equality and constitutional values. It set a precedent for safeguarding women’s rights to access religious spaces without discrimination based on gender or biological traits, thereby reinforcing India’s commitment to secularism and fundamental rights.

The judgment in the Sabarimala case had a profound impact on various fronts and triggered diverse reactions across the country:

Impact of the Judgment:

• Advancement of Gender Equality: The most significant impact was the advancement of gender equality within religious practices. By allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple, the Supreme Court affirmed that religious beliefs cannot justify discrimination based on gender. This set a precedent for future cases challenging gender-based restrictions in religious spaces.
• Assertion of Constitutional Values: The judgment underscored the primacy of constitutional values over religious customs. It emphasized that practices inconsistent with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as equality and non-discrimination, cannot be upheld solely on grounds of religious belief.
• Social Reform: It marked a progressive step towards social reform by dismantling age-old practices that perpetuated gender stereotypes and exclusion. The decision promoted inclusivity and equal rights, challenging societal norms that restricted women’s access to religious spaces.
• Legal Precedent: The ruling established a clear legal precedent for interpreting the scope of religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution. It clarified that religious practices must align with constitutional morality and cannot violate fundamental rights.

Public Reactions to the Judgment:

The judgment received widespread support from advocates of gender equality, human rights activists, and progressive thinkers. They viewed it as a landmark decision that upheld principles of justice and equality, empowering women to exercise their right to worship without discrimination. Traditionalist groups and some religious organizations however opposed the judgment, arguing that it interfered with age-old religious practices and beliefs. They viewed the court’s intervention as undermining the autonomy of religious institutions and their right to uphold customs based on faith. The judgment politically evoked mixed reactions. While some political parties and leaders welcomed it as a step towards gender justice, others criticized it for allegedly encroaching upon religious freedoms and traditions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s verdict on the Sabarimala temple entry case stands as a pivotal moment in India’s legal and social landscape. By striking down age-old restrictions that excluded women from entering the temple, the Court reaffirmed the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Indian Constitution. This landmark decision not only advanced gender equality but also underscored the importance of constitutional morality in shaping religious practices. While it sparked debates and varied reactions across different quarters of society, the judgment set a significant precedent for balancing religious freedoms with fundamental rights, thereby fostering a more inclusive and equitable society. The case sparked intense public discourse on the balance between religious freedom and gender equality. It prompted discussions on the role of courts in reforming discriminatory practices, and raised awareness about the need for progressive reforms in religious institutions. While the Sabarimala judgment represented a significant stride towards gender equality and constitutional values, it also ignited debates and controversies surrounding religious rights and social reform in India. Its impact continues to resonate in legal, social, and political spheres, shaping ongoing discussions on rights, freedoms, and inclusivity.

Author details:

Name: Kaaviya b Soman

UIM: 2024040117

Institute: RV Institute of Legal Studies

Year: 5th year student BBA-LLB

E-MAIL: somankaaviyarvils2019@gmail.com