Case Brief on "Indian Young Lawyers Association VS State of Kerala" by Shrushti Kolhe

 

By SHRUSHTI KOLHE

Course: BBA LLB

Semester: 2^nd semester

College: ARMY LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

 

INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS THE STATE OF KERALA

 

Introduction

This case was considered as one of the heavy-duty cases because of its constant jiggling between the rights of women and religious faith.

Sabarimala Temple is believed to be a Hindu Temple devoted to Lord Ayyappa and is located over one of the eighteen mountains spread of western Ghats in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. The supporters of Ayyappa are eminently known as "Ayyappan". This temple is under the supervision of the Travancore Devaswom Board created under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950.

For a very long period, Ayyappans restricted the female between the age of ten to fifty (which is considered a menstruating age group) to enter the Sabarimala temple. According to them, this restriction was justified because Lord Ayyappa was an eternal celibate (Naishtika Brahmacharya) and restriction of female entry was one of the essential religious practices. On the contrary, some activists and feminists believed that restricting women from entering the temple is cultivating discrimination and violating the fundamental rights of women.

 

 

Summary of facts

 

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

2) Court: Supreme Court of India

3) petitioner party:

·       Indian Young Lawyers Association

·       Dr. Laxmi Shastri

·       Prerna Kumari

·       Alka Sharma

·       Sudha Pal

Their lawyers:

·       R.P Gupta

·       Raja Ramachandran

·       K. Ramamoorthy

4) Respondent Party:

·       Travancore Devasworm Board

·       State of Kerala

·       Pandalam Royal family

·       Chief Thanthri

Their lawyers:

·       Jaideep Gupta

·       Liz Mathew

·       Venugopal

·       V. Giri

5) Judges involved in the bench:

·       D.Y. Chandrachud

·       Indu Malhotra

·       Rohintan Nariman

·       A.N. Khanwilkar

·       Deepak Mishra

6)Timeline of the Sabarimala Temple dispute:

·       Phase 1: In the year 1990, S. Mahendran filed a petition in Kerala High Court seeking prohibition on entry of women in the Sabarimala Temple. The case was also known as "S. Mahendran versus The Travancore". On 5 April 1991, the court had sustained the restriction of women between the age of ten to fifty to enter the Sabarimala Temple.

·       Phase 2: In the year 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court of India seeking to establish the entry of female devotees in the age group of ten to fifty in the Sabarimala Temple. After two years in 2008, the case was allotted to the three-judge bench.

·       Phase 3: After seven years, it came up for a court hearing on 11th January 2016. The court decided to refer the case to a Constitution Bench. Lastly, the Constitution Bench comprising of five judges pass the judgment on 28th September 2018.

7) petitioner’s arguments and believe

·       During the reign of Travancore King, women were allowed to enter the Sabarimala Temple, so Ayyappans cannot claim the exclusion of women as an essential religious practice since time immemorial.

·       Sabarimala temples do not satisfy the complete criteria for having a separate religious denomination; hence they cannot make their own rules.

·       This temple is operated on public funds henceforth it cannot be deemed as a separate religious denomination.

·       The petitioners believed that this exclusion is not based on religious faith but on 'biological factor' as women are considered feeble to pass a forest path and mountains over 41 days.

·       They also argued that women were considered impure and untouchable as they menstruate and this is directly giving rise to discrimination. Our constitution strictly prohibits the act of untouchability. These acts of untouchability violate Article 17 of the Indian constitution.

·       They also state that rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules of 1965 violates the fundamental rights of women as the rule says to exclude women between the age of ten to fifty to enter the public worshipping places.

8) respondent's arguments and believe

·       It was stated that Lord Ayyappa is an eternal celibate (Naishtik Brahmachari) and he should be treated as a person. As a person, his Right to Privacy should be protected. Lord Ayyappa becomes a Juristic person in the eyes of law.

·       Exclusion of women are based on certain believes of religion and tradition of the deity of the temple.

·       It is physiologically not possible for a woman to seek 41-day penance, so they were restricted from entry into the temple.

·       According to Ayyappans, exclusion of women is an essential religious practice, and Article 15(2) of the Indian constitution does not apply to religious institutes.

·       Respondent also argued that restriction on women with a specific age group is done to keep the pilgrims away from any distraction related to sex.

·       They also stated that Lord Ayyappa establishes a separate religious denomination because they follow Ayyappa Dharma, all the male devotees are called Ayyappan and all the female devotees are called Malikapurams.

·       They also believed that this is not discrimination against women but essential religious practice.

 

 

Sections applied

 

Article 14 of the Indian constitution (right to equality) – everyone is equal before law, no state can deny the equal protection of the law within the territory of Indian prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, caste, or place of birth. The state of Kerala failed to protect the rights of women in the state as they were restricted to enter the Sabarimala Temple.

Article 15 of the Indian constitution (prohibition of discrimination)- the state shall not discriminate on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them but women faced discrimination based on their 'biological factor' in Sabarimala Temple.

Article 17 of the Indian constitution (abolition of untouchability)- untouchability is abolished and its practice is forbidden. Practicing untouchability is a punishable offense. Women are considered impure and untouchable because they menstruate which violates this Article and it is unconstitutional.

Article 25 of the Indian constitution (freedom of religion) – this article is based on freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and spread of religion peacefully. The exclusion of women to worship Ayyappa in the Sabarimala Temple is a violation of the fundamental rights of Hindu women to worship and a violation of this article, which is the right to religion. To treat women as a child of a lesser god is a lacuna in the constitution.

Article 26 of the Indian constitution (freedom to manage religious affairs)- it states that every religious denomination has the following rights:

·       To create and maintain an institute for religion.

·       To manage its affairs.

·       To have possession of the movable or immovable property.

·       To manage the property in accordance with the law.

Ayyappans do not constitute a separate religious denomination, therefore they can't take benefit from this article.

Article 51A(e) of the Indian constitution – it promotes harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among the people of India exceeding religious, linguistic, and regional or sectional diversities; to reject practices hurtful to the dignity of women. Discrimination against women based on 'biological factors' is subject to violation of this law as it hurts the dignity of women.

 

 

Judgment

 

On 28th September 2018, the final judgment on women's entry in Sabarimala Temple was delivered with a 4:1 majority. The court comes up with different opinions given by different judges.

The following are the different opinions of judges: -

Justice D Y chandrachud stated that restricting women from the right to worship is contrary to constitutional morality. He also added that discrimination based on 'biological factors' like menstruation is non-religious and preventing women from taking part in pilgrimage is a stereotype and social discrimination. Furthermore, he also questioned the definition of 'untouchability' in article 17. Untouchability is not restricted to caste discrimination; it also includes exclusion faced by women and prejudices against them on the foundation of impurity and pollution associated with menstruation.

Justice Dipak Mishra stated that any rule which hurt or sabotage the dignity of women will be struck down as it violates Article 14 and 15. He struck down rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules of 1965 as it was unconstitutional. This rule defined the exclusion of females between the age of ten to fifty from public places of worship hence it was unconstitutional and ultra vires to Section 3 and 4 of its Parent Act.

Justice Rohinton Nariman stated that worshippers of Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination. He labelled them as Hindus who worship the idol Ayyappa. He highlighted on Article 25(1) which protect the fundamental rights of female between the age of ten to fifty to enter the Sabarimala Temple and exercise their freedom of worship. According to him preventing women from entering the temple was unlawful.

Justice Indu Malhotra stated that the court must respect a religious denomination's right to manage their internal affairs, irrespective of whether their practices and belief are lucid or not. She also added that Sabarimala Temple qualifies the criteria for being considered a separate religious denomination. Hence can be protected under Article 26(b) to manage its internal affairs. She said that State must respect the freedom of various individuals and sects to exercise their beliefs. Further, she added that the fundamental rights of women under Article 14 cannot dominate over Article 25, which gives assurance to every citizen to practice their faith.

The court by considering every important element delivered a judgment in the favour of the petitioner. The majority of judges believe that preventing women from entering Sabarimala Temple is discriminatory under Article 25 and everyone has a right to practice religion. Our constitution aims to break the shackles of injustice and gender discrimination.

Current status of the case: there is a review petition filed to challenge the judgment of the court.

 

Conclusion

This case has tried to bridge the gap between constitutional morality and societal morality. Freedom of religious faith is an essential part of society but the rights of women cannot be ignored too. This was a very complicated case because of different faiths and viewpoints. Questions are still rising regarding the judgment. People believed that there was various lacuna in the judgment so currently the case is referred to the seven-judge bench.