Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v. The State of Kerala &Ors.

By Harleen Kaur

---

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690

Act: Constitution of India, Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act

Principle: The practice of not letting women into the Sabarimala temple was held unconstitutional as it violated the freedom of religion of women

FACTS:

Sabrimala is a temple of the deity Lord Ayappa located in Kerela. It prohibited the entry of women in their ‘menstruating years’ (between the ages of 10 to 50), on the grounds that it is a place of worship. The same was challenged as violative of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 25 (Freedom of Religion) of the Constitution of India.

The practice of the Temple had earlier been challenged before the Kerela HC where it was upheld, as the court said that the same was a custom since time immemorial. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules allows for the exclusion of women from public places of worship, if it was based on 'custom'.

 

ISSUES:

1. Whether Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules violated Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition on denial of access to public places on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and Article 17 (Prohibition against untouchability) of the Constitution ?
2. Whether the custom of denying entry to menstruating women is a protected “essential religious practice” for the purposes of Article 26 (right to manage own internal religious affairs)?
3. Whether the exclusionary practice based on a biological factor exclusive to the female gender amounts to ‘discrimination’? Whether this practice violates the core of Articles 14, 15 and 17?

 

CORAM:

1.     Dipak Misra, CJ

2.     AM Khanwilkar, J

3.     Rohinton Nariman, J

4.     D.Y. Chandrachud, J

5.     Indu Malhotra, J (Dissenting)

 

DECISION:

The Court held that the practice was unconstitutional with a 4:1 Majority. It held that the practice violated the freedom of religion of women under Article 25(1) of the Constitution. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act was declared unconstitutional.

 

HELD:

There were four opinions. Misra CJ drafted an opinion on behalf of Khanwilkar, J and himself, with Nariman and Chandrachud, JJ. having their own separate but concurring opinions. Malhotra, J drafted a dissenting opinion for herself.

 

(i)             Misra, CJ (for Khanwilkar, J and himself)

Misra, CJ held that religion is a way of life connected directly to human dignity, and exclusion from temple merely on the basis of one’s gender amounted to a violation of Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

It was further held that evidence shows that the deity in question was not a separate denomination, but was Hindu, and thus, thetemple’s right under Article 26 was subject to the state’s power under Article 25(2)(b) which allows the state to make laws to reform the Hindu denomination. Further, since Ayyapa’s devotees are Hindus, the practice of excluding women cannot be an essential religious practice.

Rule 3(b) was struck down as it was held to be in violation of the Constitution and ultra vires to Sections 3 and 4 of its parent Act. Sections 3 and 4 of the parent Act were written with the specific aim of reforming public Hindu places so that they become open to all sections of Hindus, whereas, Rule 3(b) did the opposite.

 

(ii)           Nariman, J (for Himself; Concurring with Mishra, CJ)

Justice Nariman reached the same conclusions as Mishra, CJ largely on the same grounds.

 

(iii)         Chandrachud, J (for Himself; Concurring with Mishra, CJ)

Chandrachud, J reasoned that the exclusion of menstruating women was a direct attack against the female individual’s autonomy, liberty, and dignity, and was therefore in contravention to constitutional morality. He held that the word “morality” under Articles 25 and 26 refers to constitutional morality and such an exclusion cannot be warranted under the Constitution. Justice Chandrachud concurred with the opinions delivered by CJI Dipak Misra & Justice Nariman to hold that the Ayyappans, cannot be considered a separate religious denomination. He also held that the exclusion was not an essential religious practice.

He also observed that the practice amounts to untouchability under Article 17 and that the same is not restricted to its standard meaning. He observed that a perusal of the Constituent Assemble Debates would show that the makers of the Constitution had deliberately chosen to not give the term untouchability a specific meaning.

 

(iv)          Malhotra, J (Dissenting)

Justice Malhotra dissented from the majority and reasoned that in a constitutional democracy, a religious denomination must be free to manage its affairs, regardless of whether their decisions are rational or logical. She held that Ayyapa’s devotees do classify as separate religious denomination, and that accordingly, they are protected by Article 26 of the Constitution, and is not subject to Article 25(2)(b).

She held that the fundamental right to equality guaranteed to women under Article 14 cannot override Article 25, which guarantees every individual the right to profess, practice and propagate their faith. 

She held that Rule 3(b) does not stand in conflict with its parent Act, the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act. She emphasized that the rule 'carves out an exception in the case of public worship'. She held that the rule was consistent with Article 26(b) of the Constitution.

Finally, she held that the practice does not amount to untouchability under Article 17 as untouchability refers to a specific meaning in the context of caste based discrimination. She too relied on the Constituent Assembly Debates.

---

Harleen Kaur is a quirky (also clumsy?), sometimes cynical and other times obsessively ambitious human with a talent for overthinking everything to the last detail. A 2nd-year B.A. LL. B (Hons.) student at NLU Delhi, she is keen to explore the vast multitude of possibilities law as a field offers. She is currently especially drawn towards issues that affect women, questions of public policy, as well as sociology and economics. She feels out-of-place in pretty much every life setting, but is equally reluctant to blend in (it’s a dilemma, really). You will often find her curled up with her Kindle in a corner listening to some indie playlist in a language she does not understand.