FACTS OF THE CASE:
The State of Kerala is home to a Hindu Temple that is devoted to Ayyappan and is known as the Sabarimala shrine. The temple is situated within the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the district of Pathanamthitta, Kerala, and is commonly known as Sabarimala. The Sabarimala temple, a prominent religious site located in Kerala, had imposed a ban on the entry of women who were of menstruating age. A number of female individuals attempted to gain access to the Temple, but were impeded due to the presence of physical violence threats directed towards them. A cohort of five female legal professionals petitioned the Apex Court, contesting the verdict of the Kerala High Court that affirmed the age-old constraint, and adjudicated that the exclusive authority to determine customs rested with the “Tantrik (Priest).”
ISSUES RAISED
- Does the imposition of this restriction by the temple authorities constitute a violation of Articles 15, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution?
- Does this limitation contravene the stipulations outlined in the Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Act of 1965?
- Does the Sabarimala Temple possess a denominational character?
RATIONALE
The term ‘ratio decidendi’ refers to the legal principle upon which a court’s decision is founded. The agreement holds legal validity and is enforceable by law.
The Court rendered its decision on September 28th, 2018, with a majority of 4:1, concluding that the prohibition of women from entering the Sabarimala Temple is in violation of the Constitution. The aforementioned practice was deemed to be in contravention of fundamental rights pertaining to equality, liberty, and freedom of religion, as outlined in Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21, and 25(1). The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act’s Rule 3(b) was deemed unconstitutional. According to Rule 3(b), Hindu denominations were permitted to bar women from public places of worship on the basis of “custom.” The Supreme Court has ruled that women of all age groups are permitted to enter the Sabarimala Temple, and has affirmed that “Gender Discrimination cannot be imposed on matters of Devotion.”
The term ‘Obiter dictum’ refers to a judge’s personal viewpoint that is articulated in a court of law or in a written verdict. However, it is not considered crucial to the final decision and therefore does not hold legal weight as a precedent. The Court’s ruling in this instance asserts that the act in question violates the religious freedom of women to enter a temple and practice Hinduism without hindrance.
The assertion that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination is being made.
The Chief Justice of India, in a judicial ruling, asserted that religion is a mode of existence that is intertwined with an individual’s dignity. The Chief Justice further opined that patriarchal customs, which discriminate against one gender in favour of another, cannot be permitted to impinge upon the fundamental right to practice and proclaim one’s religion.
ANALYSIS/CASE LAW:
- ANALYSIS:
Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole female member of the bench, expressed dissent. The majority in this case was composed of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R F Nariman, Justice A M Khanwilkar, and Justice D Y Chandrachud. During the reading of the verdict by Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Dipak Misra, in collaboration with Justice A M Khanwilkar, it was stated that women are not of lower status or inferior to men. The prevalence of religious patriarchy must not supersede the importance of individual belief. The inclusion of biological factors, such as menstruation, cannot be deemed a valid justification for the exercise of religious freedom. Religion can be understood as a comprehensive system of beliefs, practises, and values that guide an individual’s way of living. As per the ruling of the Chief Justice of India, it was determined that the followers of Ayyappa do not form a distinct religious group. The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules of 1965, specifically Rule 3(b), which imposed a ban on the entry of women into Sabarimala, was deemed unconstitutional and therefore invalidated. Justice Nariman’s concurring opinion maintained that any action that undermines individuality is incompatible with the principles of the Constitution. Treating women as individuals of inferior status is in violation of the principles enshrined in the Constitution. The ruling stated that Ayyappa do not form a distinct religious sect. According to Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion, the rationale behind the prohibition was predicated on the notion that the inclusion of women would disrupt the state of virginity, thereby imposing the responsibility of men’s sexual purity on women. The observation made was that this practice results in stigmatization and stereotyping of women. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Indu Malhotra asserted that matters concerning profound religious sentiments ought not to be typically subject to judicial intervention. The intervention of the Court in this matter would be unwarranted unless there is a dissatisfied individual from the concerned community or religious group. The concept of rationality ought not to be applied to matters pertaining to religion. The individual maintained that both the shrine and the deity are safeguarded under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that the prohibition of women in a particular age group during their menstrual cycle from entering the Sabarimala Temple is in violation of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
In a country like India, the exercise of religious freedom is one of the most important factors in ensuring the smooth operation of the democratic system. We are aware that the goals of the Constitution and the social reality are significantly different from one another; but, in order for society to operate in an efficient and effective manner, it is vital to minimize these discrepancies to the greatest extent feasible. The apex court, in the case titled “Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala & Ors,” attempted to find a middle ground between the constitutional objectives and the socioeconomic realities of the situation at hand.
written by SOMYA GUPTA inern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments