BY SANJANA SHIKHAR,
B.A.L.L.B (HONS.)
2ND YEAR (3RD SEMESTER)
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State Of
Kerala on 28 September, 2018
Sabarimala temple
is located in Sabarimala, Kerala, in the Pathanamthitta district. Lord Ayyappa
is honoured in this Hindu temple. The Travancore Devaswom Board, a statutory organisation
established under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950,
administers this temple. Women devotees between the ages of ten and fifty were
previously denied the ability to worship in this temple. This ban on women is
supported by the fact that Lord Ayyappa is a Naishtik Brahmachari, and it is
vital for the deity Ayyappa's character to be preserved. Women between the ages
of 10 and 50 are not authorised to enter the temple, according to a Travancore
Devaswom Board announcement. Some gender rights activists, on the other hand,
believe that this exclusionary practise, which is based on a biological feature
that is unique to women, amounts to discrimination and breaches the fundamental
rights granted by the Indian Constitution.
The tension
between tradition and women's rights lies at the heart of the Sabarimala Temple
debate. Women between the ages of 10 and 50 were not allowed to enter
Sabarimala Temple due to traditions and customs, although this ban is in
violation of constitutional morals.
Facts of the Case
A suit was filed
in the Kerala High Court in 1990, asking for a ban on women entering the
Sabarimala temple. The Kerala High Court upheld the ban on women under a
particular age from entering Lord Ayyappa's hallowed shrine. In 2006, the
registered association of Indian Young Lawyers filed a petition in the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, requesting that women aged
10 to 50 be admitted. After two years, the case was referred to a three-judge
panel in 2008. In January 2016, the Supreme Court of India raised concerns
about such restrictions, stating that they violate constitutional morality. The
Kerala government responded in April 2016 that it is obligated to defend
Sabarimala devotees' right to exercise their religion. The case was referred to
a Constitutional bench by the Supreme Court of India in 2017. Rule 3(b) of the
Kerala Hindu places of public worship (authorisation of entry) rules, 1965
(hereinafter referred to as 1965 rules), framed in exercise of the powers
conferred by section 4 of the Kerala Hindu places of public worship
(authorisation of entry) act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 1965 Act), is
unconstitutional, according to the writ petition, because it violates Articles
14, 15, 25, and 51A (e) of the Indian Constitution.
Issues
Whether the
exclusionary practise, which is based on a biological feature that is unique to
women, constitutes to discrimination and breaches the core of Articles 14,15,
and 17, and is not protected by morality as defined in Articles 25 and 26 of
the Indian constitution?
Is this
exclusionary practise a fundamental religious practise as defined by Article 25
of the Indian Constitution?
Is the Ayappa
Temple a religious denomination as defined by Indian Constitution Article 26?
If so, is it permissible for such a denomination, which is governed and
regulated by a statutory body and funded under Article 290A of the Indian
Constitution, to engage in such degrading acts in violation of constitutional
morality/principles provided by Articles 14,15(3),39(a), and 51A? (e).
Is it true that
Rule 3 of the 1965 Rules allows religious denominations to bar women aged 10 to
50 from entering? And, if that's the case, wouldn't it be in violation of
Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Indian Constitution?
Is Rule 3(b) of
the Rules of 1965 in violation of the Act of 1965? Is it possible that if it is
considered intra vires, it will be in violation of the constitution's Part III
provisions?
Findings of the Court
The Supreme Court
ruled that everyone, regardless of gender or sex, has the freedom to religion
under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. Women's freedom to visit a public
temple to freely practise Hinduism and express her devotion to Lord Ayyappa is
violated by such restrictive traditional practise.
The court further
noted that numerous evidence provided in court suggests that Lord Ayyappa
devotees do not constitute a separate religious group under art 26. A fresh
approach for a religion must be established for a separate religious group.
However, devotees' different activities prove that it is widespread throughout
Hinduism. Mere observance of certain practices from time immemorial does not
make it distinct religion.
The court held
that, in the absence of scriptural or textual proof, the exclusionary practise
could not be accepted as an important aspect of religion. Allowing women to
enter the Sabarimala temple will not affect or change the essential notion of
Hinduism.
The court
determined that under Art 25, the phrase "morality" refers to
constitutional morality, not society or individual morality. When a basic right
is violated, the term "morality" inevitably implies
"constitutional morality." The court found that a simple reading of
Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules reveals that it is in violation of Sections 3 and 4
of the 1965 Act.
Dissenting opinion of Indu Malhotra, J:
Devotees of Lord
Ayyappa, according to her, are a religious denomination entitled to protection
under Article 26. Because there is a mix of legal and factual issues in this
case, it must be handled by a competent civil court. A matter of fact cannot be
decided in the same way as it cannot be decided in writ.
The right to file
a complaint with the Supreme Court under Article 32 for a breach of the
fundamental right to worship at a temple should be based on a claim that the
petitioner's personal right to worship has been infringed upon. Because this
restriction is provided for the benefit of all Christian faiths, Rule 3(b) is
not in violation of Section 3 of the Act of 1965.
She pointed out
that the equality theory enshrined in Art 14 does not take precedence over the
basic right guaranteed by Art 26. The religious community must decide what
constitutes an essential religious practise.
Followers of Lord
Ayyappa form a distinct religious denomination because they adhere to Ayyappa
Dharma and have a distinct set of beliefs, practises, and usages, as well as a
code of behaviour, which they have followed since time immemorial.
She also pointed
out that the restrictions on women are only partial and are an important
component of their religion. Any intervention with this would be in violation
of their right to worship Lord Ayyappa in the form of a Naishtik Brahmachari,
as provided by art 25(1).
References:
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/case-comment-sabarimala-case/
4. https://lawcirca.com/sabarimala-case-summary/
1.
2.
3.
4.
