Indian Young Lawyer’s Association & Ors. Versus – Rohit Gore

Indian Young Lawyer’s Association & Ors. Versus 

State Of Kerala & Ors. (2017) 

By: Rohit Gore 

rohitgore622@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION 

In general, India is such a nation which is lack in providing or maintaining gender equality. In  the last decade, India has seen a major challenges and changes with regards to gender justice  and equality, including Sabrimala case, Vishakha guidelines, POCSO, Triple Talaq¹and  various many changes. 

The Sabrimala temple case stands as a major intersection of religion, tradition, and  constitutional rights in India. As its heart lies the debate over the centuries-old practice that  barred women between 10 to 55 from entering into the Sabrimala temple, situated in the  southern state of Kerala. This practice was deeply rooted in religious beliefs surrounding the  celibate nature of the deity Lord Ayyappa, believed to reside in the temple’s sanctum  sanctorum.  

In September 2018, the Supreme Court of India rendered a landmark verdict, overturning the  centuries-old ban, thereby igniting a nationwide discourse on gender equality, religious  practices, and constitutional freedoms. The case has sparked fervent arguments from both  proponents of traditional religious customs and advocates for gender equality and individual  rights.  

This introduction sets the stage for a profound exploration of the legal, cultural, and societal  implications of the Sabrimala temple case, highlighting its significance in shaping  contemporary interpretations of religion and constitutional rights in India. 

FACTS 

Sabarimala shrine, a hindu temple is in the State of Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappan, an  eternal celibate. It is a temple located at Sabarimala inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve  in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala which is a reserve area. The Sabarimala temple is  managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (hereinafter referred as TBD) and TBD  restricted menstruating women between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering into the  temple. 

The restrictions are based on the fact that the temple deity, Swami Ayyappa, is a  Naishtika Brahmachari i.e. a celibate and therefore is an epitome of purity which should not  

¹Shayra Bano vs. Union Of India and Ors., (2017)9 SCC 1

2 

violated by menstruating women. The followers of lord Ayyappan regarded it to be Essential  religious practice and its violation will lead to violation of spiritual development. Based on this, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization  of Entry) Rules, 1965, prohibits women from entering the Sabarimala temple premises.  Kerala High Court in 1991, in its judgment restricted the entry of women above the age of 10  and below the age of 50 from offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine as they were of the  menstruating age by mentioning that the restriction was in place since centuries and is not  discriminatory to the constitution of India. 

The High Court also held that only the chief priest and the Tantrik (Priest) were  empowered to decide on traditions. In 2006, Indian Young Lawyers Association along with  five others challenged and questioned the ban in Supreme Court seeking a direction to allow  entry of women into the temple without age restriction. 

ISSUES- 

“1. Whether the exclusionary practice which is based upon a biological factor exclusive to the  female gender amounts to “discrimination” and thereby violates the very core of Articles 14,  15 and 17 and not protected by „morality‟ as used in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution? 

2. Whether the practice of excluding such women constitutes an “essential religious practice”  under Article 25 and whether a religious institution can assert a claim in that regard under the  umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion? 

3. Whether Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character and, if so, is it permissible on  the part of a ‘religious denomination’ managed by a statutory board and financed under  Article 290-A of the Constitution of India out of the Consolidated Fund of Kerala and Tamil  Nadu to indulge in such practices violating constitutional principles/ morality embedded in  Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a) and 51-A(e)? 

4. Whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry)  Rules permits ‘religious denomination’ to ban entry of women between the age of 10 to 50  years? And if so, would it not play foul of Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution by  restricting entry of women on the ground of sex?

3 

5. Whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry)  Rules, 1965 is ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry)  Act, 1965 and , if treated to be intra vires, whether it will be violative of the provisions of  Part III of the Constitution?” 

LAWS INCLUDED 

1. Constitution of India  

2. Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 3. Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 

ANALYSIS 

The exclusionary practice which is completely based upon the biological factor exclusive to  female gender amounts to discrimination. The discriminatory practice of barring women from  visiting the shrine is a breach of their fundamental rights and it hereby violates the  constitutional provisions under Art. 14, 15 and 17. Being a discriminatory and inhumane  practice towards the equality, liberty and dignity of women; the said practice is not protected  by morality in the Art.25 and 26. 

The right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion is guaranteed by Art. 25. Essential  Religious Practices are those practices which are fundamental to the religion in the present  case prohibiting the entry of women in the temple is not essential religious practice, it is  neither logical nor rational or time immemorial. Hence, Lord Ayyappa board is not a  religious denomination. Thus, it cannot assert a claim in this regard under the umbrella of  right to manage its own affairs. 

Rule 3 of the Rules1965, allows religious denomination to ban entry of women between 10- 55 years. But, here the Travancore Devaswom Board does not fall under the category of  religious denomination as provided in SP Mittal’s case²and further, rule 3 of the Rules 1965  get its essence from Art. 26 of the Constitution of India which is also subject to public health,  order and morality. The said rule is not protected by the term morality under article 26 of the  constitution. 

²1983 SCR (1) 729

4 

Rule 3 is ultra vires to Sec. 3 of Act 1965 and Section 4 of the 1965 Act because the said rule  in contra with the object of the 1965 act. The act was made with the purpose of ensuring the  entry of all the Hindus to the all Hindu places of public worship. The said rule prohibits  women from entering the temple on illogical and irrational grounds. Thus it is ultra vires to  the act. The said rule is violative to article 14, 15, 17, 21 and 25 of the constitution. 

Whether the prima facie sympathy of everyone hearing the segments of facts of this case goes  with the women, but what will be about the custom which is in existence from time  immemorial, what will be about the brahmacharya nature of Lord Ayyappa ? 

The foremost question comes into mind that being a god their nature which is “naishtika brahmchari” a celibate and therefore is an epitome of purity which should not violated by  menstruating women. In Hindu culture, god is considered as a living creature or living person  himself, those whose lives are honoured, are bathed clothes are worn, they are fed up and also  put to sleep. Even in Jagannath puri, when the Lord goes to the sick post, he is also treated. 

CONCLUSION 

The Sabarimala case has been a pivotal moment in India’s legal and social landscape,  marking a significant step towards gender equality and the rights of individuals to practice  their faith free from discrimination. The Supreme Court’s decision to lift the ban on women  of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple underscores the principles of inclusivity  and constitutional rights over entrenched traditions that perpetuate gender-based  discrimination. This landmark verdict not only affirms the progressive values of a modern  democracy but also sets a precedent for future cases where religious practices may conflict  with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. As India continues to  evolve, the Sabarimala case will be remembered as a milestone in the ongoing journey  towards a more just and equitable society.