This Case Commentary is written by Muskan Sharma , a Third Year Law student of University of Mumbai Law Academy

Case Details:

SCR Citation: (2018) 11 SCC 1

Year/Volume: 2018

Date of Judgment: September 28, 2018

Neutral Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690

Judgment Delivered by: Justice Dipak Misra (Chief Justice of India)

Case Type: Writ Petition (Civil)

Bench: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra

Parties to the Dispute:

· Petitioners: Indian Young Lawyers Association and others

· Respondents: State of Kerala, Travancore Devaswom Board, and others

Introduction:

The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case revolves around the centuries-old practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The temple authorities justified this restriction as a custom grounded in religious belief, while the petitioners challenged it based on fundamental rights, particularly gender equality. This case sparked nationwide debate, touching upon deeply rooted religious sentiments, women’s rights, and constitutional principles. The court was tasked with balancing these conflicting interests.

Facts of the Case:

· The Sabarimala temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, revered as a deity who took a vow of celibacy. Tradition held that women of menstruating age (10 to 50 years) were barred from entering the temple as it was believed their presence would disrupt the deity’s celibacy.

· The petitioners, led by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, argued that this exclusion violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 17 (Abolition of Untouchability), and 25 (Freedom of Religion) of the Indian Constitution.

· The respondents, including the Travancore Devaswom Board, defended the practice on the grounds of religious autonomy under Article 25. They argued that the temple’s traditions were an essential part of the deity’s nature and, therefore, could not be altered without infringing upon religious freedom.

History of the Case:

The legal journey regarding the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala temple began with a significant ruling by the Kerala High Court in 1991. In the case of S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore, the court upheld the ban, declaring it constitutional and in accordance with the temple's long-standing customs. The court concluded that this exclusion did not violate the rights of women devotees regarding equality and freedom of worship.

However, by 2018, the legal and social dynamics surrounding gender equality and individual rights had evolved considerably. In light of this shift, the Supreme Court agreed to revisit the issue, scrutinizing whether such traditional practices could withstand the scrutiny of constitutional guarantees. This re-examination was essential in determining the balance between preserving religious customs and ensuring compliance with fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Judgment:

In a 4:1 majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of excluding women based on menstruation was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Dipak Misra, delivering the lead judgment, emphasized that constitutional morality must prevail over deeply rooted discriminatory customs. He asserted that any religious practice that denies women equal access to public spaces, including places of worship, violates the core principles of the Constitution, specifically Articles 14, 17, and 25.

Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole dissenter, argued that matters of faith and religious practices should not be subject to judicial scrutiny. She reasoned that the Constitution guarantees religious groups the freedom to manage their own affairs and that courts should be cautious not to interfere with religious traditions unless there is clear harm to public order, health, or morality.

Analysis:

The judgment in this case goes beyond simply addressing whether women should be allowed to enter the Sabarimala temple; it speaks to the broader issue of how far constitutional rights extend into the domain of religious practices. At the heart of the case lies the question of whether traditions, no matter how old or significant to a community, can justify discrimination in a constitutional democracy.

The majority opinion was clear: the rights of individuals, particularly the right to equality, cannot be subjugated to religious customs that violate the Constitution’s guarantees. Chief Justice Dipak Misra and the concurring judges stressed that Article 25, which provides for freedom of religion, must be interpreted in harmony with Articles 14 and 17, which prohibit inequality and untouchability. This interpretation underscores the court’s stance that religious practices must evolve when they conflict with modern constitutional values.

However, Justice Malhotra’s dissent reflects a counterpoint that is worth considering. Her opinion draws attention to the cultural and religious sensitivity required when dealing with faith-based practices. She argued that what constitutes an “essential religious practice” should be determined by the religious community itself, not by the court. This brings up an important debate about the boundaries of judicial intervention in religious matters. Should courts step in to reform practices that are seen as discriminatory, or should they respect the autonomy of religious institutions?

The ruling sparked intense public debate, particularly because it touched on a conflict between progressive values and religious traditions. While many saw the judgment as a significant step toward gender equality, others felt that the court had overstepped by intervening in religious affairs. The issue also brought to light the need for dialogue between tradition and modern constitutional principles, rather than a rigid imposition of one over the other.

Additionally, this case highlights the court’s role in fostering constitutional morality. Constitutional morality, as articulated in this judgment, refers to the principles that uphold the dignity, equality, and liberty of individuals, even when these principles come into conflict with religious or societal norms. By striking down the Sabarimala ban, the court sent a message that the Constitution’s values of equality and justice are paramount, even in matters of religious tradition. This also reflects a growing trend in Indian jurisprudence where courts are increasingly viewing gender equality as a non-negotiable aspect of constitutional governance.

That said, the backlash following the judgment shows that legal victories do not always translate smoothly into societal acceptance. Large protests erupted, and the temple itself saw disruptions as traditionalists resisted the entry of women. This case, therefore, is not only about legal principles but also about the complex dynamics between law, society, and faith. Legal reforms, especially in the domain of religion, require a delicate balance between enforcing rights and maintaining societal harmony.

In sum, the judgment was a triumph for gender equality and non-discrimination, but it also opened up a broader conversation about the place of religion in a constitutional democracy. The judiciary’s role in reforming religious practices must be exercised with care, especially in a country as diverse and pluralistic as India.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is a landmark moment in India’s legal history. It reflects the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the values of equality and non-discrimination, even in the face of deep-rooted traditions. The case is a reminder that constitutional morality must be the guiding light in a democracy, ensuring that individual rights are protected against exclusionary practices. However, the dissent in this case also highlights the importance of respecting religious autonomy and the need for courts to tread carefully when intervening in matters of faith. The ongoing societal debate following the judgment underscores the complexities involved in balancing tradition and modern constitutional principles in India.

References:

1. Supreme Court of India, Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) 11 SCC 1 Sabarimala Temple Entry - Supreme Court Observer accessed 08 october 2024.

2. LiveLaw, 'Sabarimala: Supreme Court Allows Women of All Ages to Enter Temple' (2018) Women Entry In Sabarimala: Past, Present And Future - LiveLaw accessed 08 october 2024.

3. Bar & Bench, 'Sabarimala: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Women’s Entry' (2018) Sabarimala Review: Majority Judgment explained - Bar and Bench accessed 09 october 2024.

4. The Hindu, 'Sabarimala Verdict: Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Women Entry' (2018) www.thehindu.com accessed 09 october 2024.

5. SSRN, 'The Impact of Sabarimala Verdict on Gender Rights in India' Unveiling the Legal Implications from the Sabarimala Verdict accessed 08 october 2024.

7. India Law Journal, 'Exploring the Sabarimala Case: A Legal Perspective' AN ANALYSIS OF THE SABARIMALA TEMPLE CASE accessed on 08 october 2024.