– Dr. Jacent Mpalyenkana
In the context of women’s rights in relation to the legal principle of equality before the law, women are entitled to equal treatment and cannot have their constitutional rights restricted or denied based only on their gender, according to constitutional imperatives. Still, it is impossible to fairly assert parity when evaluating physical strength. Within Indian law, strength of body is considered a secondary kind of power, intellect as the primary kind, and spiritual strength as the most important. The soul’s nature is gender-neutral, reflecting the law’s prohibition against discrimination based on gender.
FACTS
The current legal matter originated from a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition was directed against the Kerala government, the Devaswom Board of Travancore, the Chief Thantri of Sabarimala Temple, and the Pathanamthitta district magistrate. The main point of contention, as stated by the petitioner and refuted by the respondent, is women between the ages of 10 and 50 have the right of admission to the Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala, Kerala.
Believed to be the offspring of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu, Lord Ayyappa is worshipped in temples built in his honor among Hindus. On the other hand, the Sabarimala Temple sets itself apart as a sacred place that was allegedly designated by Lord Ayyappa himself. ‘Vratham’, or penance, is a 41-day ritual in which one abstains from all worldly activities. It is one of the temple’s special pilgrimage procedures, which are based on the Lord’s instructions to King Rajasekara. Encouraging a Sathvic lifestyle and brahmacharya—which are thought to purify the body and mind—is the essence of Vratham.
The belief behind the ban on women entering the Sabarimala Temple is that their menstrual cycle interferes with their supposed purity, making it impossible for them to maintain the purity needed for Vratham. Another explanation stems from the belief that Lord Ayyappa is a Bramchari deity, and it is suggested that the arrival of women will disrupt the deity’s chastity.
The Supreme Court will decide whether these limitations violate constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 17 based on the prohibition that is at the center of the writ petition filed under Article 32. The petition also asks whether the restrictions are protected by the definition of “morality” found in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Interestingly, the Kerala High Court’s ruling that the entry restriction is constitutionally permissible is being contested in a writ petition filed by five female lawyers. Ruling in favor of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, the High Court held that the restrictions in question did not violate Articles 15, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. This writ case was filed before the Supreme Court in 2006 as a result of several arguments raised against the challenged decision in S. Mahendran vs. The Secretary, Travancore. (1991).
ISSUES
- In addition to contradicting Jean Rousseau’s theories of natural law and the social contract, which emphasises equality, freedom, and sovereignty, the prohibition of women for biological reasons also runs counter to Articles 14,13 (Right to Equality), 15,14 (Discrimination), and 17,15 (Untouchability).
- Article 25,16 does not apply to “morality” to any other activity that merely violates the other specified rights. (right to practise and spread religion), which runs counter to John Locke’s conception of religious liberty,
- Can a “religious denomination” use Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules to prohibit women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering?
- If it does, does this mean that it violates feminist legal theory as well as Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution, which forbid women from entering based on their sex?
- Does the custom of excluding women qualify as a “essential religious practice” for the purposes of Article 25, and can a religious organization claim that it has the right to conduct its affairs in accordance with its religious beliefs?
CONTENTION OF THE CASE
The Sabarimala Temple legal story is entwined with the conflict between religious customs and the quest for gender parity. The argument primarily centers on the long-standing tradition of excluding women between the ages of 10 and 50 from attending Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple. The temple’s administration maintains this prohibition because they consider Lord Ayyappa, the god worshipped there, to be celibate. The legal dispute started in 1990 when a petition was filed attempting to forbid women from entering the Sabarimala Temple. The Kerala High Court upheld the appeal, citing long-standing traditions. When the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition in 2006 pursuant to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the case made its way to the Supreme Court seeking the entry of women of all ages.
The crux of the contentions in the case encompasses several key aspects:
Discrimination and Constitutional Violation: The primary contention questions whether the exclusionary practice, based on the age and gender of women, constitutes discrimination, and runs afoul of constitutional provisions guaranteeing equality (Article 14), freedom from discrimination (Article 15), and the abolition of untouchability (Article 17). Essential Religious Practice where the debate focuses on whether the Sabarimala Temple’s ban on women’s admission meets the criteria for an essential religious practice that is covered by the right to freedom of religion outlined in Article 25 of the constitution.
Religious Denomination and Constitutional Values: Whether the Sabarimala Temple is allowed to carry out actions that could be interpreted as going against constitutional values depends on whether it is classified as a religious denomination. Examining the temple’s management and administration for compliance with constitutional morals is part of this.
The legitimacy of Specific Laws: There has been debate regarding the legitimacy of some laws, most notably Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, Rule 3(b). The argument is on whether this rule—which prohibits women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering—is consistent with the Constitution. The petitioner contended that because women between the ages of 10 and 50 are not allowed admission into the significant portion, the exclusionary practice amounts to discrimination against women as a class. The impact test described in Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India & Ors. was also relied upon by the petitioner. and claimed that since the biological aspect of menstruation stems from the traits of a specific sex, this discrimination is limited to that basis.
The petitioners argue that the exclusionary practice amounts to discrimination against women, infringing upon their fundamental rights. They contest the classification of Lord Ayyappa’s followers as a separate religious denomination and assert that the practice violates constitutional morality. In response, the temple authorities and supporters of the tradition defend the practice, arguing that it is an essential aspect of their faith and is protected as a constitutional right to freedom of religion. They contend that the restriction is limited to a specific age group and is crucial for preserving the temple’s religious identity. It was also noted that in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors., the Kerala High Court upheld the religious denomination of Lord Ayyappa’s devotees. Once both oral and documentary evidence had been recorded, the High Court made its decision. This decision, which determines whether the temple qualifies as a religious institution, is a judgment in rem; no one challenged it. Therefore, the petitioner and all other parties are bound by it.
In my opinion, the story of Sabarimala extends beyond a single temple. It poses important queries on the limits of religious beliefs in contemporary democracies, the place of tradition in a shifting society, and the continuous fight for gender parity. Its reverberations reverberate throughout India and beyond, compelling us to consider how we tread carefully in the space between religion and basic rights. In addition to being a legal dispute, the Sabarimala case is also a social test and a microcosm of a country struggling with its identity and destiny. The course of this story may only become clear with time, but one thing is for sure: the flames of the struggle between equality and faith will never go out, shedding light on the way to a more just and equitable world.
RATIONALE OF THE CASE
The Indian Young Lawyers Association & OR’s v. State of Kerala & Ors case, formerly known as the Sabarimala Temple case, was a landmark development in India’s legal system. In this case, the long-standing custom of forbidding women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple was contested. In a historic decision rendered on September 28, 2018, the top court ruled that this practice violated the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of equality and the right to freedom of religion.
The interpretation and application of constitutional principles serve as the foundation for the reasoning for the ruling. Through a constitutional bench, the Supreme Court stressed that women’s age and gender-based exclusion from the Sabarimala Temple constituted a violation of their fundamental rights. It was decided that the ban was discriminatory, regressive, and incompatible with the rights to religious freedom and equality before the law.
Chief Justice Dipak Mishra, Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, R. F. Nariman, and D. Y. Chandrachud issued the majority opinion, which emphasized the practice’s discriminatory aspect and maintained that women had an equal right to worship regardless of their age. Articles 14(right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 19(1) (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 25(1) (freedom of religion) all direct conflict with the ruling that forbade women from entering the temple.’
The court emphasized that the temple’s practices did not represent a distinct religious group and rejected the notion that the temple’s practices were protected under Article 26. According to the majority view, the admission limitation placed on women did not meet Article 25’s requirements for being an essential religious practice. Additionally, the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act’s Rule 3(b) was ruled to be illegal since it permitted Hindu denominations to exclude women based on tradition. Justice Indu Malhotra, on the other hand, disagreed, stating that cases with strong religious overtones need to be avoided by the court until the party impacted files a complaint. She thought that Article 25 safeguarded the shrine and the deity and that rationality concerns should not be applied to religious practices
The judgment sparked diverse reactions, reflecting the broader societal debate on the balance between individual rights and religious practices. Despite the legal clarity provided by the Supreme Court, the implementation faced challenges due to strong sentiments attached to religious beliefs. As the case continues to generate discussions and legal proceedings, it remains a pivotal instance in the ongoing exploration of the intersection between constitutional ideals and societal realities in India.
DEFECTS OF LAW
A few flaws in the legal components of the ruling were exposed in the Sabarimala lawsuit, which was brought by the Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. The seeming meddling with religious practices is one important problem. Deeply religious issues should be left alone until there is an obvious breach that directly affects a specific person, Justice Indu Malhotra stressed in her dissenting opinion. This calls into question the judiciary’s authority to dictate religious practices and raises the possibility of a conflict between the constitutional ideals of equality and religious freedom.
The disagreements over the fundamental religious tenets of the Sabarimala temple represent another serious disadvantage. Justice Indu Malhotra claimed in her dissent that the court should not define important religious practices, even though the majority of the court believed that barring women was unconstitutional. The legal framework pertaining to religious liberty is made more ambiguous by the absence of agreement on what defines an essential religious activity.
Furthermore, a disconnect between constitutional ideals and actual reality is shown by the difficulty in putting the ruling into practice. The opposition and uneven reception of the decision demonstrate the limits of judicial interference in issues that are strongly embedded in popular culture. The decision highlights the difficulties in striking a balance between constitutional morality and a variety of social beliefs, highlighting the flaws in the law as it attempts to gain widespread approval.
CONCLUSION
Finally, crossing the complex terrain of gender equality, religious customs, and constitutional principles, the Sabarimala case represents a turning point in the legal system. By a majority verdict of 4:1, the Supreme Court overturned the long-standing prohibition on women between the ages of 10 and 50 from attending the Sabarimala Temple on the grounds that it violated their fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. It is important to recognize Justice Indu Malhotra’s opposing viewpoint, even if the decision sparked heated discussions in society and highlighted the conflict between custom, individual rights, and constitutional morality. Her view emphasized the judiciary’s delicate role in deciding cases that are intricately linked to religious feelings and argued for a prudent strategy that upholds the autonomy of religious groups.
The Sabarimala case highlights significant concerns regarding the judiciary’s involvement in matters of faith in addition to reflecting the changing dynamics between religious practices and constitutional values. The verdict’s impact goes beyond the particular case at hand, promoting a more comprehensive conversation about constitutional morality and how it intersects with many religious and cultural traditions in India’s varied society. As the case moves through the legal system, it raises important questions about how to maintain religious freedom while also protecting fundamental rights in a multifaceted and heterogeneous socio-religious environment
AARISH AHMED
STUDENT AT SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE
.