Summary of Recent judgment

Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association v The State of Kerala



Date of Order / Judgment: 04 October, 2024

The Matter Heard by Bench: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra

Background

The case arose from a challenge to the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965, which prohibited the entry of women of a certain age(10-50) into the Sabarimala Temple. The Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition seeking to allow women of all ages to enter the temple, arguing that the restrictions were discriminatory and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India..

Issues

    The key issues before the Supreme Court were:

  • 1. Whether the restrictions imposed on the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple constituted a violation of Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 25 (Freedom of Religion) of the Indian Constitution.
  • 2. The balance between religious practices and constitutional rights.
  • 3. The interpretation of "essential religious practices" and the extent of state intervention in religious affairs.
Observation

The Court observed that while the right to practice religion is protected under the Constitution, it is subject to the limitations imposed by laws that ensure public order, morality, and health. The judges emphasized the need to analyze the tradition in the context of constitutional rights and affirmed that practices that exclude women based on gender cannot be justified in a secular state. The Court also highlighted the importance of equality and non-discrimination in matters of religion.

Decision

In a 4:1 verdict, the Supreme Court held that the restrictions on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala shrine were unconstitutional, striking down Rule 3(b) of the KHPW Act. The Court directed measures to ensure the safety of women pilgrims entering the shrine.

The majority opinion stated that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form a separate religious denomination but are part of the broader Hindu community. They concluded that, without any scriptural evidence supporting the exclusion of women, it could not be deemed an essential religious practice. The Court observed that Rule 3(b) went against the purpose of the KHPW Act, which aimed to reform and make Hindu places of worship accessible to all. Thus, the rule was declared unconstitutional for violating Part III of the Constitution.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud remarked that social exclusion of women based on physiological factors like menstrual status was akin to untouchability and contradicted the principles of constitutional morality, which is prohibited under Article 17. He emphasized that a woman's menstrual status is part of her right to privacy, and imposing exclusions based on this status undermined women's dignity, as protected by the Constitution.

In her dissent, Justice I. Malhotra argued that the case should not proceed due to a lack of standing by the Petitioners. She maintained that worshippers at the Sabarimala Temple qualify as a religious denomination and should be afforded protections under Article 26. She also contended that the limited restrictions on women's entry did not violate Part III of the Constitution.

After the judgment, a review petition was filed, which is been referred to a larger bench for adjudication..