Bench- Chief Justice of India (the then CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and members Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra
Background of the Case
The Sabarimala Temple[1] in Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa,[2] historically prohibited women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from going in the temple due to the belief that menstruating females are impure and should not be in proximity to the celibate deity, Lord Ayyappa. In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld this practice. However, the matter was re-examined when the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court challenging the ban on the grounds of gender discrimination.[3]
Facts of the case:
In 1990, The Kerala High Court received a plea to forbid women from visiting the Sabarimala, and The high court maintained the 1991 prohibition on women between the ages of 10 and 50 entering Lord Ayappa’s shrine. In2006, the Young Lawyers Association petitioned the Supreme Court to allow women aged 10-50 to enter the temple. After two years, in 2008, the matter was referred to a 3-judge bench. In 2016, the Supreme Court questioned the ban on women entering the temple and later transferred the matter to a constitutional bench.
In a Important judgment, a constitutional bench of five judges led by CJI Dipak Mishra, with a majority of 4:1, removed the ban on women going into the Sabarimala temple by striking down the rules of the Dewasom board. The court stated that this ban was discriminatory and infringed on women’s right to equality and worship. Justice Indu Malhotra was the dissenting voice, emphasizing that the court should not interfere with religious practices unless they are harmful, comparing it to the practice of Sati.
Issues Involved:
- The ban on women based on their biological characteristics is a clear violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and Article 17 (Untouchability), and any such action that infringes upon these rights cannot be justified under Article 25 (Freedom to Practice and Propagate Religion)[4].
- Is excluding women from religious practices considered an “essential religious practice” under Article 25, and can a religious organization argue that it falls under the right to govern its religious affairs?
- Is the Ayyappa Temple a religious establishment with a denominational identity, and, if so, can a ‘religious denomination’ overseen by a statutory board and funded through Article 290-A of the Indian Constitution’s Consolidated Fund of Kerala and Tamil Nadu engage in such activities that contradict constitutional values and moral principles embedded in Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a), and 51-A (e)?[5]
- Does Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules allow a ‘religious denomination’ to restrict women aged 10 to 50 from entering? If so, does this action infringe upon Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution by barring women based on their gender?[6]
Petitioners’ Contention:
- Violation of Fundamental Rights:
Gender Equality: The petitioners argued that excluding women aged 10-50 from the Sabarimala temple violates Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex) of the Indian Constitution.
Right to Worship: They contended that the ban infringes on women’s right to freedom of religion under Article 25, which guarantees the right to freely practice, profess, and propagate religion.
2. Constitutional Morality:
– The petitioners asserted that the custom of excluding women is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of equality and dignity. They emphasized that constitutional morality, which upholds principles of justice, equality, and non-discrimination, should prevail over age-old religious customs.
3. Non-Essential Religious Practice:
– It was argued that excluding women is not an essential part of the Hindu religion and does not constitute a core religious customs. Therefore, it shouldn’t be protected under the freedom of religion provisions (Articles 25 and 26).
4. Social Reform:
– The petitioners highlighted that customs excluding women from religious spaces perpetuate patriarchal values and undermine efforts towards achieving gender justice and social reform.
Respondents’ Contention (Temple Authorities and Supporters):
1. Right to Manage Religious Affairs:
– The respondents argued that the Sabarimala temple, as a religious institution, has the autonomy to manage its religious matter under Article 26(b). This includes deciding who is allowed to enter the temple.
2. Essential Religious custom:
– They claimed that excluding women of menstruating age is an important and integral part of the temple’s religious custom, tied to the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa, the presiding deity of the temple.
3. Religious Freedom:
– The respondents contended that the ban on women is protected under Article 25, which guarantees the right to practice and profess one’s religion freely. They argued that religious practices, even if seemingly discriminatory, are protected as long as they form a core part of the faith.
Rationale of the Sabarimala Temple Case
The Supreme Court’s rationale in the Sabarimala temple case was multifaceted, addressing constitutional principles, the nature of religious customs, and the intersection of traditional customs with contemporary values. The decision was delivered in a 4:1 majority verdict, with each judge providing their reasoning for the judgment. Here’s a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the verdict[7]:
1. Gender Parity and Non-Discrimination (Articles 14 and 15):
The majority opinion emphasized that excluding females based on their biological characteristics (menstruation) is a form of discrimination. Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on grounds of sex. The ban was found to violate these constitutional provisions.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar: They stated that the custom of excluding women is a form of “untouchability” which is prohibited under Article 17. The ban perpetuates stereotypes and stigmatizes females based on a natural biological process, thus undermining their dignity and equality.
2. Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25):
Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. However, this right is subject to public order, morality, and health.
Justice R.F. Nariman: He held that the right to practice religion under Article 25 is subject to constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. The exclusion of women of a certain age group does not form an essential religious practice and therefore cannot override women’s right to equality.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud: He reasoned that the ban on women’s entry is not an essential part of the Hindu religion. The essential practices test is meant to protect only those practices that are integral to the faith, and exclusion based on menstruation is not one of them.
3. Public Morality vs. Constitutional Morality:
The Court distinguished between public morality, which is based on societal norms and customs, and constitutional morality, which is based on the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
– The majority held that when there is a conflict between public morality and constitutional morality, the latter must prevail. customs that contravene constitutional values cannot be justified on the grounds of public morality.
4. Right to Worship and Religious Freedom:
The Court also addressed the right to worship. It held that every individual, irrespective of gender, has the right to worship and that practices restricting this right on arbitrary grounds are unconstitutional.
– Chief Justice Dipak Misra: He stated that the right to worship is not dependent on a person’s gender and that any custom or practice that violates this right is unconstitutional.
The reasoning of the Court:
The majority’s rationale was that the enforcement of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment could, in all probability, entail another right to religion-case. It noted that, in this situation, the benches can, to satisfy the judgment of Sabarimala, refer to a larger bench. The case is primarily concerned with the authority of the Supreme Court to issue orders on the Sabarimala petition for review and provisions laid down as follows.[8]
Article 145(3): – This article defines the minimum number of judges who can hear any case involving a substantive issue of law as to Constitution of India.
Article 14- Right to equality-. This Article states that the rights of all people are absolute. “The State shall not deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of the law within the territory of India.”
Article 15 – This deals with discrimination based on sex, religion, caste, or place of birth.
Article 25 – Freedom of religion. Article 25 of the Constitution states that any person shall have the freedom to observe, confess, and spread religion to all people. “All persons have the same right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order, morality, and health.” (The report relied on by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Sabarimala in 2018).
Article 26 – This Article gives all citizens the full freedom to establish their religious laws in compliance with the public interest. “Article 26 of the Indian Constitution gives every religious group the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, to manage religious affairs, their assets by the law.”
Defects of Law in the Sabarimala Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Sabarimala case was a landmark verdict, but it also revealed several defects and challenges within the legal framework and the broader judicial approach to religious practices. Here is a detailed examination[9] of these defects:
- Ambiguity in the Essential Religious Practices Test:
The essential religious practices test has been a cornerstone in adjudicating religious freedom cases, but it is inherently subjective and lacks clear guidelines. Different judges and benches have interpreted the essential practices to test variably, leading to inconsistent rulings. In the Sabarimala case, the majority held that excluding women was not an essential practice, but this assessment is subjective and open to interpretation.
- Judicial Overreach:
Critics argue that the judiciary overstepped its bounds by intervening in religious customs.
Article 26(b) of the Indian Constitution grants religious denominations the right to manage their affairs in matters of religion. In this way, the court was perceived to infringe on the religious community’s self-rule by overturning a long-standing religious practice. Consequently, other religious customs may be interfered with by the judicial system as a result of its decision thereby leading to an erosion of religious liberties. Furthermore, this might lead to a situation whereby religions perceive that the judiciary has become hostile towards their faiths.
- Balancing Constitutional Morality and Religious Freedom
Essentially, constitutional morality is all about equality and non-discrimination; however, such principles may sometimes conflict with some religious customs that are generally seen as discriminatory. Balancing between these two is intricate and can create tensions between progressive constitutional mandates and traditional religious practices. On the part of religious groups, the emphasis on constitutional morality will be seen as an introduction of modern values into traditional beliefs thereby resulting in resistance against the courts and hence alienation from them.
- Inadequate Consideration of Cultural Context Understanding Religious Sentiments
The cultural significance or even religious meaning was not adequately considered in the judgment according to detractors’ viewpoint. To make fair judgments on cases involving traditions based upon religion there must be an understanding of historical and cultural context. Devotees understood it as an insult to their faith leading to feelings of being left out of it following this ruling.
Public Reaction and Implementation Challenges
The Supreme Court’s verdict sparked a range of reactions across Kerala and India. While many hailed the decision as a progressive step towards gender equality and women’s rights, it also led to protests and resistance from devotees and religious organizations who viewed the verdict as an infringement on religious traditions.[10] Implementing the Supreme Court’s judgment faced significant challenges, with instances of protests, debates over the enforcement of the verdict during the pilgrimage season, and questions regarding the role of state authorities in ensuring compliance with the ruling.[11]
Impact and Implications
The Sabarimala temple case has had far-reaching implications for religious practices, gender equality, and constitutional law in India. It has set a precedent for future cases involving conflicts between religious practices and constitutional rights, highlighting the judiciary’s role in balancing religious freedoms with fundamental rights.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Sabarimala temple case stands as a pivotal moment in India’s legal and social landscape, underscoring the complexities of reconciling religious practices with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. While the Supreme Court’s judgment marked a significant step forward in affirming gender equality, the case continues to provoke discussions on the delicate balance between religious freedoms and fundamental rights in a pluralistic society.
BHAVYA ARORA
IILM University
[1] It is known as the ‘Sacred Abode of Lord Ayyappa’ and is a major Hindu pilgrimage center in the country.
[2] He is believed to be an avatar of Lord Vishnu.
[3] J. Conflict of law and religion – analysis of Sabrimala Case, Conflict of Law and Religion – Analysis of Sabrimala Case | ProBono India. Available at: https://www.probono-india.in/blog-detail.phpd=127 (Accessed: 17 June 2024).
[4] Indian Young Lawyers Association vs the state of Kerala on 28 September, 2018. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163639357/ (Accessed: 15 June 2024).
[5] Indian Young Lawyers Association vs the state of Kerala on 28 September, 2018. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163639357/ (Accessed: 15 June 2024).
[6] SC allows entry of women into Sabarimala temple. Available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/pdf/sc-allows-women-entry-into-sabarimala-temple.pdf (Accessed: 15 June 2024).
[7] Kumari R, (2021) Menstruating women and celibate gods: A discourse analysis of women’s entry into Sabarimala temple in Kerala, India – dimensions. Available at: https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1122284929 (Accessed: 15 June 2024).
[8] Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. state of Kerala: The Sabrimala judgement a question of religious practice vs fundamental rights (2018) (Accessed: 15 June 2024).
[9] The Flagship Journal of NLU, Jodhpur, NLUJ LAW REVIEW. Available at: http://www.nlujlawreview.in/ (Accessed: 16 June 2024).
[10] Bijukumar, V. (2019) ‘When religious faith mutilates gender equality: Women entry in Sabarimala Temple in Kerala’, ANTYAJAA: Indian Journal of Women and Social Change, 4(2), pp. 238–244. doi:10.1177/2455632719880857.
[11] Pioneer Law Associates (2024) | Law Firm in Kathmandu | Pioneer Law Associates. Available at: http://www.pioneerlaw.com/ (Accessed: 17 June 2024).