Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala

Admin

11 months ago

Advertisements

Spread the love

CITATION	(2019) 11 SCC 1
DATE OF JUDGMENT	2018
COURT	Supreme Court
PETITIONERS	Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors.
RESPONDENT	The State of Kerala & Ors.
BENCH	Dipak Misra, R.F. Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra

Introduction

In the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court declared that discrimination based on biological characteristics is constitutionally invalid, as it infringes upon a woman’s dignity, autonomy, and freedom, as guaranteed under Article 21.

The Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa and his followers, is managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, established under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. Historically, women aged 10 to 50 were prohibited from exercising their right to worship in this Hindu temple.

This restriction on women is justified on the grounds that Lord Ayyappa is a “Naishtik Brahmachari,” and to preserve the deity’s character, the Travancore Devaswom Board issued a notification prohibiting women aged 10 to 50 from entering the temple. However, gender rights activists argue that this exclusionary practice, based on biological factors specific to the female gender, amounts to discrimination and violates various fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

The Sabarimala Temple issue revolves around the conflict between tradition and women’s rights. While customs and traditions have historically restricted women aged 10 to 50 from entering the temple, this limitation is considered inconsistent with constitutional morality.

Facts of the Case

The focal point of the case is the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, a Hindu temple dedicated exclusively to God Ayyapan. The temple historically prohibited women aged 10 to 50 from entering, citing its dedication to Lord Ayyapan and the belief that women of menstruating age would compromise the temple’s commitment to celibacy.

This exclusionary practice was upheld by an ancient tradition, supported by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Act, 1965. In the case of S. Mahendra vs. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors., the Kerala High Court determined that such a restriction did not violate women’s fundamental rights as per the provisions of the constitution.

Issues Raised

Whether the exclusionary practice, which is based upon the biological factor exclusive to the female gender amounts to discrimination and violates very core of Articles 14,15 and 17 and not protected by morality as used in Articles 25 and 26 of Indian constitution?
Whether this exclusionary practice constitutes an essential religious practice under Art 25 of Indian constitution?
Whether the Ayappa Temple is Religious denomination under Art 26 of Indian constitution? If yes then whether such denomination managed and administered by statutory body and financed under Art 290A of Indian constitution, is allowed to indulge in such derogatory practices violating constitutional morality/principles guaranteed under Articles 14,15(3),39(a) and 51A(e).
Whether Rule 3 of 1965 Rules permits religious denomination to prohibit entry of women between age of 10 to 50? And if so, would it not against the Articles 14 and 15(3) of Indian constitution?
Whether rule 3(b) of Rules of 1965 is ultra vires to Act of 1965? If consider it as intra vires, whether it will be violative of the provisions of Part III of constitution?

Contentions of Petitioners

The petitioner asserted that the exclusionary practice at the Sabarimala temple, barring women between the ages of 10 to 50, constitutes discrimination based on sex. Relying on the impact test from Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, the petitioner argued that this practice violates Article 15(1) and, being a public place, also contravenes Article 15(2)(b).

Additionally, the petitioner contended that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, which codifies this practice, fails to meet constitutional tests under Articles 14, 15, and 21. The classification lacks a constitutional basis and infringes on the right to worship. Despite the Act of 1965 aiming for social reform, Rule 3(b) is deemed ultra vires as it imposes a gender-based restriction not found in the legislation.

The petitioner challenged the notion that followers of Lord Ayyappa constitute a “religious denomination” under Article 26, arguing that their differences in rituals do not establish a distinct name or common faith. Even if they were considered a religious denomination, the petitioner insisted that their rights under Article 26(b) should be subject to the limitations of Article 25(2)(b).

Furthermore, the petitioner maintained that the prohibition on women of a specific age is not an essential religious practice and lacks constitutional legitimacy. This practice was argued to violate Article 21, as it stigmatizes women, and Article 17, as it amounts to a form of untouchability.

Highlighting the temple’s management by a statutory authority and financial assistance from the consolidated fund of India, the petitioner contended that it falls under the category of “other authority” and is obligated to respect fundamental rights. Emphasizing that the right to worship is equally applicable to both men and women under the constitution, the petitioner argued against diluting women’s right to enter the temple for worship under the guise of social reform or welfare per Article 25(2)(b).

Contentions of Respondent

The respondent argued that Article 25(2)(b) emphasizes the absence of caste discrimination and should not override the essential customs integral to religion. They contended that this provision is irrelevant as there is no complete ban, only a temporal restriction based on long-standing custom, faith, and belief.

Furthermore, the respondent asserted that girls under 10 and women above 50 can freely enter the temple, negating claims of social discrimination. The absence of restrictions at other Lord Ayyappa temples was cited to justify the classification, aiming to preserve the deity’s identity as a Naishtik Brahmachari.

The respondent insisted that the practice, existing since time immemorial, constitutes a pre-constitutional custom, falling under the ambit of Article 13(3)(b). They argued that Article 26 is subject only to public order, morality, and health, not Articles 14 or 15, asserting that protecting the character of the deity is essential for the rights of Lord Ayyappa’s devotees.

Claiming the restriction on women’s entry as an integral part of the temple’s essential practice, the respondent argued it serves to prevent distractions related to sex. They maintained that the restriction doesn’t derogate but safeguards the sacred manifestation of the deity.

The respondent contended that the case involves legal and factual issues, urging examination by a competent civil court based on documentary and other evidence. They asserted that Lord Ayyappa’s devotees constitute a religious denomination, referencing a Kerala High Court judgment in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, binding on all parties.

Lastly, the respondent clarified that Article 17 aims to prevent untouchability based on caste, which is not practiced at the temple, countering any claim of caste-based discrimination.

Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that constraints on entry of women between the ages of 10 – 50 into the Sabrimala Temple was constitutionally quesntionable and invalidated Rule 3(B) of the KHPW Act. The Court also issued instructions to guarantee the safety of female pilgrims trying to enter the temple.

The court ruled that worshippers of lord ayyappa shall not establish a completely separate religious denomination but were component of the hindu fold and that in the lack of scriptural substantiation rationalising the practise, a women’s alienation could not be called an essential religious practices.

The court ruled that Rule 3 (B) was deemed to be ultra vires the KHPW Acts goal of reforming and opening public hindu places to all people. The court also ruled that Rule 3 (B) of the KHPW Rules was violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Indian constitution and hence unconstitutional.

Analysis

The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case marked a significant legal battle over the exclusionary practice at the Sabarimala Temple. Here is an analysis of the key elements:

Constitutional Challenge: The case centered around the constitutional validity of restricting the entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala Temple, based on the biological factor of menstruation. The Supreme Court scrutinized this practice in light of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
Historical Tradition vs. Constitutional Morality: The court deliberated on the clash between longstanding customs and constitutional morality. The argument that tradition justified the exclusion was countered by the petitioners, who contended that the practice violated constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and the right to worship.
Article 25 and 26 Interpretation: The judgment discussed the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled against treating the worshippers of Lord Ayyappa as a separate religious denomination and emphasized that the absence of scriptural justification for the practice rendered it non-essential to the religion.
Rule 3(B) of KHPW Act and Rules: The court declared Rule 3(B) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Act, 1965, ultra vires, finding it unconstitutional. The rule, which supported the exclusionary practice, was deemed inconsistent with the objectives of the Act, which aimed to reform and open Hindu places of worship to all.
Gender Discrimination and Fundamental Rights: The court recognized the exclusionary practice as a form of gender discrimination violating fundamental rights. It emphasized the need to uphold the dignity, autonomy, and freedom of women, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Public vs. Private Character of the Temple: The judgment acknowledged the Sabarimala Temple’s public character, stating that it received financial assistance from the consolidated fund of India and was managed by a statutory authority. This public character subjected it to the obligation of respecting fundamental rights.
Injunction for Women’s Safety: The court issued instructions to ensure the safety of female pilgrims attempting to enter the temple, addressing concerns about potential resistance or violence.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the Supreme Court’s verdict in this case marked a landmark decision that upheld the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and constitutional morality over traditional practices that were found to be inconsistent with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The ruling has broader implications for similar issues at the intersection of religious practices and constitutional principles in India.

References

Written by Tanya Dutta an intern under legal vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin

PDF 📄