Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case)

The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), popularly known as the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case, is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India that upheld the right of women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. Delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, the verdict struck down the traditional ban on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 years, declaring it unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. The judgment became a defining moment in the constitutional history of India, reinforcing the principles of gender equality, religious freedom, and constitutional morality.

Background and Context

The Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, is located in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. According to the temple’s long-standing tradition, women between the ages of 10 and 50 years—that is, women of menstruating age—were prohibited from entering the temple. The temple authorities justified this exclusion by claiming that Lord Ayyappa was a “Naishtika Brahmachari” (eternal celibate), and the presence of women of reproductive age would disturb the deity’s celibacy and spiritual austerity.
The restriction was backed by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, framed under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, which allowed the exclusion of women “who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship.”
In 1991, the Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran v. Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board upheld the ban, ruling that the restriction was a valid religious practice protected under Article 25 (freedom of religion).
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking to challenge this ban as discriminatory and unconstitutional. The case questioned the balance between religious freedom and gender equality—a theme central to India’s secular constitutional framework.

Facts of the Case

The petitioners challenged the exclusionary practice at Sabarimala on the grounds that it violated the fundamental rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution.
The respondents included the State of Kerala, the Travancore Devaswom Board (which administers the temple), and various religious organisations supporting the ban.
The matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices R. F. Nariman, A. M. Khanwilkar, D. Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the exclusion of women aged 10–50 years from entering the Sabarimala Temple violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 25 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the Ayyappa devotees form a separate religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26.
3. Whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, is ultra vires the Constitution.
4. How to reconcile the right to freedom of religion with the right to equality and non-discrimination.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments (Indian Young Lawyers Association):

• The petitioners argued that the ban on women’s entry was a clear violation of Article 14 (equality) and Article 15 (non-discrimination) of the Constitution.
• They contended that religious freedom under Article 25 cannot override fundamental rights, as the Constitution guarantees equality to all citizens.
• They maintained that “custom” or “usage” cannot justify discrimination on the basis of sex, as such practices are inconsistent with constitutional morality.
• The petitioners also argued that Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate religious denomination, as they belong to the larger fold of Hinduism and therefore cannot claim denominational rights under Article 26.

Respondents’ Arguments (State of Kerala and Travancore Devaswom Board):

• The respondents argued that the restriction on women’s entry was an essential religious practice protected by Articles 25 and 26.
• They claimed that the Sabarimala temple follows a distinct religious tradition, with Lord Ayyappa being a celibate deity, and thus forms a separate denomination entitled to manage its own affairs.
• It was contended that the restriction was not based on gender, but on the age and observance of celibacy, and therefore did not violate Article 15.
• The respondents also relied on the Kerala High Court’s 1991 judgment, which upheld the ban as a long-standing and valid custom.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The judgment was delivered on 28 September 2018, by a 5-judge Constitution Bench, with a 4: 1 majority ruling that the ban on entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple was unconstitutional.
Majority Opinion (Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices Nariman, Chandrachud, and Khanwilkar):

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
   • The Court held that the exclusion of women aged 10–50 years violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(d), and 21 of the Constitution.
   • It stated that such exclusion amounts to gender discrimination and denies women equal access to public places of worship.
2. Freedom of Religion Not Absolute:
   • The Court held that Article 25(1), which guarantees freedom of religion, is subject to public order, morality, and health as well as the other fundamental rights.
   • Religious freedom cannot be used to justify practices that violate the dignity and equality of women.
3. Ayyappa Devotees Not a Separate Religious Denomination:
   • The Bench concluded that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a distinct religious denomination, as their faith and practices are part of Hinduism.
   • Therefore, the temple authorities cannot claim protection under Article 26(b) (the right of denominations to manage religious affairs).
4. Invalidity of Rule 3(b):
   • The Court struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, as unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 25(1).
5. Constitutional Morality:
   • The Court introduced the concept of constitutional morality, stating that the Constitution is founded on principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which override religious or social customs that contradict these values.
6. Right to Worship:
   • Every person, irrespective of gender, has the right to worship in places of public worship. The exclusion of women from the Sabarimala Temple was thus held to be unconstitutional.

Concurring Opinions:

• Justice D. Y. Chandrachud emphasised that the exclusionary practice reinforced patriarchal stereotypes and amounted to untouchability in a constitutional sense, prohibited under Article 17.
• He also stated that the Constitution must be interpreted in a transformative manner to promote social reform and gender justice.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Indu Malhotra):

• Justice Malhotra dissented, holding that the matter of temple entry was an internal religious issue and not for judicial interference.
• She argued that the Sabarimala temple had a distinct religious character, and its practices should be protected under Articles 25 and 26.
• She warned that allowing courts to interfere in religious customs could open the door to challenges against other long-standing religious practices.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the exclusion of women based on biological factors (menstruation and reproductive age) is unconstitutional, as it violates the fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), freedom of movement and worship (Article 19 and 25), and the right to dignity (Article 21). Religious freedom is subject to constitutional morality, which upholds the supremacy of fundamental rights over discriminatory traditions.

Significance of the Judgment

The Sabarimala judgment has far-reaching implications for gender justice, religious freedom, and constitutional interpretation in India.
1. Affirmation of Gender Equality:

• The ruling reaffirmed that gender-based exclusion in religious or public spaces is unconstitutional and contrary to the spirit of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution.

2. Advancement of Constitutional Morality:

• The Court established that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality, setting a precedent for balancing religious freedom with human rights.

3. Expansion of Religious Freedom:

• The judgment clarified that the right to freedom of religion includes the right of individuals, not merely religious denominations, to access places of worship.

4. Strengthening Transformative Constitutionalism:

• The decision exemplified transformative constitutionalism, using judicial interpretation to reform discriminatory customs and align them with modern democratic values.

5. Influence on Future Jurisprudence:

• The principles laid down in this case influenced subsequent debates on women’s entry into other places of worship, such as mosques and temples, and on broader questions of religious reform.

Criticism

• The judgment was met with strong opposition from traditionalists and devotees, who viewed it as an infringement on their religious freedom.
• Critics argued that the Court’s application of constitutional morality amounted to judicial overreach into religious affairs.
• The implementation of the judgment faced severe resistance in Kerala, leading to protests, violence, and political mobilisation.
• Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent was widely appreciated for highlighting the limits of judicial intervention in faith-based matters.

Later Developments

Following the 2018 verdict, multiple review petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, citing the need for a larger bench to examine the interplay between religious freedom and gender equality. In 2019, a five-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a larger seven-judge Bench, which is still pending adjudication.

Legacy

The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) judgment stands as a milestone in India’s constitutional history for its powerful affirmation of gender justice, equality, and individual rights. It underscored that faith and tradition cannot be used to justify discrimination, and that constitutional morality is the true guiding principle of a secular and democratic India.
By dismantling patriarchal barriers in religious spaces, the Sabarimala judgment paved the way for a more inclusive, progressive, and egalitarian interpretation of the Constitution, reaffirming that “the Constitution is supreme, and all faiths are equal before it.”