Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 559

Case Number	Writ Petition (Civil) No 373 of 2006
Date of Judgment	28.09.2018
Court	Supreme Court of India
Petitioner	Indian Young Lawyers Association; Dr Laxmi Shastiri; Prerna Kumari; Alka Sharma; Sudha Pal
Respondent	State of Kerala ; Travancore Devaswom Board;Pandalam Royal Family; Chief Thanthri
Bench	Dipak MisraA.M. KhanwilkarRohinton NarimanD.Y. ChandrachudIndu Malhotra
Laws	Article 14, Article 15, Article 17, Article 21, Article 25, Article 26, Article 29, Article 51 of Constitution.
Citation	(2019) 11 SCC 1; 2018 (8) SCJ 609

Background:

The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala revolves around the contentious issue of women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple, a prominent Hindu pilgrimage site located in the state of Kerala, India. The temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa and is known for its age-old tradition of restricting the entry of women of menstruating age (typically defined as between 10 and 50 years) into the temple premises. This practice was based on the belief that Lord Ayyappa was a celibate deity, and the presence of menstruating women was considered impure. Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a PIL challenging the prohibition on the entry of women of menstruating age as discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights.

Facts of the Case

The Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a PIL in the Supreme Court challenging the ban on the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Temple.

In this case, it was crucial to determine whether excluding women under a specific age from entering temples constituted a fundamental religious practice guaranteed by Articles 25 and Article26 of the Indian Constitution.

The case revolved around the interpretation and application of several constitutional provisions, including Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth), Article 17 (abolition of untouchability), Article 25 (freedom of religion), and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs).

The court considered the historical and cultural context of the Sabarimala Temple and its practices, seeking to balance religious beliefs with the principles of gender equality enshrined in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court heard extensive arguments from the petitioners, the state of Kerala, the Travancore Devaswom Board (which manages the temple), and various intervenors, to understand the different perspectives and legal interpretations.

Various stakeholders, including religious organizations and individuals, presented diverse arguments and opinions regarding the traditions, beliefs, and practices associated with the Sabarimala Temple.

ISSUES

1. Does the Sabarimala Temple’s ban on menstruating women entering violate the rights to equality, to be free from discrimination, and to be untouchable?

2. Do followers of Lord Ayyappa belong to a distinct religious sect with the authority to administer their own religious affairs?

3. Does Article 25 consider women’s exclusion to be an “essential religious practice”?

4. Does Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rule 3 allow a religious denomination to prohibit the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 years?

5. Does the Public Worship Rules’ acceptance of the practice conflict with the original law’s prohibition on discrimination practices?

Arguments of petitioner

The petitioners argued that the prohibition of women of menstrual age from entering the Sabarimala Temple violated their fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. These rights included the right to equality (Article 14), the right to non-discrimination based on sex (Article 15), the right to freedom of religion (Article 25), and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21).

The petitioners contended that the ban was based on gender stereotypes and perpetuated discrimination against women solely on the basis of their biological characteristics related to menstruation. This was inconsistent with the principles of gender equality and was a form of untouchability.

The petitioners argued that the ban excluded women from a public space based on a biological aspect of their identity, which amounted to discriminatory and unconstitutional exclusion. This exclusion was not in line with the progressive and inclusive ideals of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioners challenged the notion that the practice of excluding women of menstrual age was an essential religious practice of the Sabarimala Temple. They contended that the exclusion was not an essential part of the Hindu religion and was discriminatory against women.

The petitioners emphasized the right of women to pray and express their faith freely, and the ban curtailed this right for a specific group of women based on their age and biological characteristics. They argued that every individual, irrespective of gender, should have equal rights to access and express their faith in places of worship.

The petitioners highlighted that religious traditions and practices should evolve with time and societal changes. They argued that traditions that perpetuated discrimination and inequality should be reevaluated and revised to align with constitutional values and principles.

The petitioners contended that allowing women of menstrual age to enter the Sabarimala Temple would serve the public interest by promoting gender equality and inclusivity. They argued that upholding gender equality was essential for the overall progress and welfare of society.

The petitioners cited precedents from the Supreme Court of India and referred to international standards to support their argument that the ban violated fundamental rights and was inconsistent with evolving global norms regarding gender equality and non-discrimination.

Defendant’s Arguments:

The defendants argued that the restriction on the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Temple is based on a centuries-old religious practice and is an essential aspect of the temple’s tradition. They contended that the practice has been followed for generations and is deeply ingrained in the beliefs and customs of the temple.

The defendants contended that Lord Ayyappa, the deity at Sabarimala Temple, is considered a celibate (Naishtika Brahmachari). The restriction on the entry of women of menstruating age is believed to maintain the deity’s celibacy and sanctity. Allowing women of menstruating age to enter the temple is viewed as a violation of these beliefs.

The defendants emphasized the importance of preserving the autonomy of religious institutions in managing their affairs. They argued that the state should not interfere with religious matters unless there is a grave violation of fundamental rights. Any interference could set a dangerous precedent for government involvement in religious practices.

The defendants relied on the “essential religious practice” doctrine, asserting that the restriction on women of menstruating age is an essential and integral part of the religious practice followed at the Sabarimala Temple. They argued that interfering with this practice would amount to interference in the essential customs and beliefs of the religion.

The defendants contended that allowing women of menstruating age to enter the temple could disrupt public order and morality, as it may lead to protests and social unrest among devotees who strongly adhere to the traditional practices of the temple.

The defendants highlighted the need to respect and preserve India’s diverse cultural and religious traditions. They argued that respecting and protecting diverse practices is fundamental to maintaining India’s secular fabric and ensuring harmony among different religious communities.

The defendants argued that singling out the Sabarimala Temple for intervention could be seen as discriminatory, especially when similar restrictions based on gender or age exist in other religious places across the country. They emphasized the need for a consistent approach in dealing with religious practices across different faiths.

Judgement

The Supreme Court of India, in a 4-1 majority judgment, held that the practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional and violated the fundamental rights of women. The court held that this practice was discriminatory and based on gender stereotypes

In his ruling, Justice Chandrachud stated that denying merely females the freedom to worship indicates the subjugation of women. He adds that the exclusionary practices, which are based on “biological factors” of a nonreligious origin and suggest that women cannot maintain the “vrutham,” contribute to prejudices that support discrimination in society. Furthermore, since Art. 17 also includes women and banning someone based only on mensuration is unconstitutional, engaging in such behavior would push society in the direction of patriarchy.

In a dissenting decision, Justice Malhotra stated that regardless of whether religious activity is reasonable or irrational, it must take place in the inside area of the temple. She noted the temple’s status as a recognized religious organization. Additionally, she said that while Art. 14 does grant women the right to equality, it cannot conflict with Art. She disputes that the action violated Art. 17 and argues that the discrimination was necessary to preserve the temple’s sanctity. Gender-based discrimination is not included as a form of discrimination in Art. 17, hence it was not illegal.

Any laws that divide and undermine the dignity of women, according to Justice Mishra, must be repealed since they violate Articles 14 and 15. Ayyappa worshippers also failed the criteria for the religious denomination, hence they are unable to claim a separate religious identity. He stated that women are included in “classes and sections” and suggested that state-mandated reform is necessary. The Kerela Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules of 1965 were also invalidated by him, and he said that praying without women is not a necessary religious practice.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Nariman held that Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution protects denominational freedom and that he cannot award the devotees a new denomination but may refer to them as Hindus who worship the deity Ayyappa. It is unconstitutional, he claimed, to deny women the freedom to worship.

Analysis

The ruling in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala signalled a fundamental change in how Indian constitutional law interpreted religious practises. It defended women’s rights to worship freely and without hindrance, going against long-standing conventions that kept them out of several religious settings due to their age and gender.

However, the judgment also sparked intense debate and discussions about the balance between religious freedom and gender equality. Some argued that the court’s intervention in religious matters could potentially infringe upon religious rights and traditions.

Overall, this case stands as a critical milestone in the ongoing discourse regarding the intersection of religion, tradition, and constitutional rights, especially pertaining to gender equality and discrimination.

Impact and Conclusion: