Religious practices

INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KERALA & Ors 25 jan 2025 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: 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. Whether freedom of religion under Article 25 can allow restrictions based on biological factors exclusive to women, such as menstruation. 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