FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner in this case is the Indian Young Lawyers Association, and the respondent is the State of Kerala. The case involves a clash between traditional religious practices and the constitutional rights of women. The historical background of the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case can be traced back to the centuries-old traditions and customs surrounding the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, India. The temple, located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, a revered deity believed to be celibate. For many years, the Sabarimala temple has enforced a ban on the entry of women of menstruating age, typically defined as those between 10 and 50 years old. This prohibition is based on the belief that the presence of menstruating women would disrupt the celibacy of Lord Ayyappa and compromise the temple’s sanctity. The ban was considered a long-standing religious practice deeply rooted in tradition and followed by devotees and authorities alike. This practice is present there because customs and traditions believed that women during menstruation are not pious and there energy will be detrimental for temple. However, as societal norms evolved and the fight for gender equality gained momentum, questions were raised regarding the constitutionality of the ban. Critics argued that the prohibition infringed upon women’s fundamental rights and perpetuated gender discrimination. They contended that the ban was based on patriarchal notions that treated women as impure during their menstrual cycle and denied them equal access to religious spaces. The legal battle challenging the ban on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple began in 2006 when the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition in the Supreme Court of India. The petition questioned the validity of the ban and sought to uphold the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and women’s rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The case gained significant attention and sparked intense debates across the country. Supporters of the ban argued for the preservation of age-old traditions and the sanctity of religious practices. They believed that the restriction was justified and necessary to maintain the temple’s religious purity. On the other hand progressive and liberal society believed that it violates women’s right of equality. The legal arguments presented in the case revolve around fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The petitioners contended that the ban violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution. Article 14 ensures equal protection of the law, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Article 25 protects the freedom to practice and propagate religion, subject to certain restrictions. The crux of the argument was that the ban perpetuates gender stereotypes and denies women equal access to religious worship.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether this practice violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, such as the right to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion.
- Whether the prohibition on the entry of menstruating women constituted gender-based discrimination.
- Whether the religious practice of the temple should be allowed to supersede the constitutional rights of women.
- Whether the practice of prohibiting the entry of menstruating women was justified on the grounds of religious belief or whether it infringed upon constitutional rights.
CONTENTION
Contention by the petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the practice of prohibiting the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 25 (Freedom of Religion) of the Indian Constitution. They contended that the practice was discriminatory and treated women as impure solely based on their biological condition.
The petitioner asserted that the exclusion of menstruating women from the temple constituted discrimination based on sex and violated their right to equality enshrined in Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution. They argued that the practice perpetuated patriarchal stereotypes and denied women equal access to religious spaces.
The petitioner maintained that while freedom of religion is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and must be subject to reasonable restrictions. They argued that the prohibition on women’s entry into the temple was not an essential religious practice and did not pass the test of constitutionality.
The petitioner contended that traditions and customs cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. They argued that if a practice is violative of constitutional principles, it should be set aside, even if it has been followed for a long time. They emphasized the need to strike a balance between respecting traditions and upholding constitutional values.
Contentions by the Respondents:
The respondents, representing the temple management, argued that the practice of restricting the entry of menstruating women was a well-established custom protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. They contended that the court should not interfere with religious beliefs and practices unless they are manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory.
The respondents maintained that the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the temple was based on centuries-old traditions and beliefs associated with the deity. They argued that it was a matter of faith and should be respected as an integral part of religious practices.
The respondents contended that gender equality should be interpreted in the context of the particular religious denomination and its customs. They argued that equality cannot be equated with sameness and that different customs and practices may exist within different religious communities.
The respondents argued that the practice of prohibiting the entry of menstruating women into the Sabarimala temple was an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. They contended that interference with such practices would amount to excessive judicial interference in religious matters.
These contentions formed the basis of the arguments presented by both the petitioner and the respondents. The court thoroughly examined these contentions, along with relevant provisions of the Indian Constitution, precedents, and legal principles, before arriving at its judgment in the case.
RATIONALE
A constitutional bench comprising of five judges was constituted to hear the matter. The composition of the bench consisted of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra.
The bench, after considering the arguments presented by the petitioner and respondents, delivered a landmark judgment on September 28, 2018. The judgement came in a ratio of 4:1 and irony is that the only female in the bench was an descendi .The judgment held that the practice of excluding women of menstruating age (between 10 and 50 years) from entering the Sabarimala temple violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 25 (Freedom of Religion) of the Indian Constitution. The court observed that the practice of prohibiting the entry of menstruating women was based on deep-rooted gender stereotypes and treated women as impure during their menstrual cycle. It held that the practice amounted to gender discrimination and violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution. Regarding the argument of the respondents that the practice was an essential religious practice protected under Article 25, the court opined that essential religious practices must conform to the overarching principles of the Constitution. It emphasized that any practice, no matter how steeped in tradition, cannot claim constitutional protection if it is discriminatory or violates the fundamental rights of individuals. The court further clarified that the exclusionary practice based on biological factors perpetuated gender stereotypes and undermined the dignity and equality of women. It emphasized that religious practices cannot be a shield for perpetuating inequality or denying equal rights to individuals. The judgment of the Supreme Court in this case was a landmark decision, as it struck down the centuries-old practice and paved the way for gender equality and non-discrimination in religious places. It recognized that constitutional values must prevail over discriminatory customs and traditions. The decision was hailed as a significant step towards ensuring equal rights for women and promoting a more inclusive society. The judgment in the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case reflected the court’s commitment to upholding the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and gender justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution
DEFECTS OF LAW
One major defect of law in this case was the absence of a clear legislative framework governing the rights of individuals in religious places. The absence of specific legislation addressing issues of gender discrimination and access to religious spaces left the matter open to judicial interpretation. The court had to rely on constitutional provisions and principles to address the issue, which could have been better addressed through comprehensive legislation. Another defect was the lack of a comprehensive framework for balancing religious freedom and gender equality. The court’s decision was based on a case-by-case analysis, rather than a comprehensive legal framework that could guide future cases involving similar conflicts. A clear legal framework would have provided more clarity and consistency in resolving conflicts between religious practices and constitutional rights.
Furthermore, there was a lack of specific provisions addressing the rights of women in places of worship. The absence of specific provisions safeguarding women’s rights in religious spaces allowed for discriminatory practices to persist. The case highlighted the need for legislation or regulations that explicitly prohibit gender-based discrimination in religious places and ensure equal access for all individuals. The lack of an effective enforcement mechanism to implement the court’s decision. While the court struck down the practice of prohibiting menstruating women from entering the Sabarimala temple, there was a need for effective mechanisms to ensure compliance with the judgment. This included measures to raise awareness, monitor adherence to the ruling, and address instances of non-compliance or resistance. Additionally, the lack of widespread social acceptance and awareness about gender equality and women’s rights contributed to the defects in the law. Deep-rooted patriarchal attitudes and social norms often perpetuate discriminatory practices, making it difficult to enforce legal remedies effectively. Addressing these societal attitudes and promoting awareness about gender equality becomes crucial to ensure the full realization of women’s rights in religious spaces. The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala shed light on several defects in the existing legal framework. These defects included the absence of specific legislation, the lack of a comprehensive framework for balancing religious freedom and gender equality, the absence of specific provisions safeguarding women’s rights in religious places, the need for an effective enforcement mechanism, and societal attitudes that hinder the implementation of legal remedies. Recognizing these defects is crucial in advocating for legal reforms, raising awareness, and promoting a more inclusive and equal society.
INFERENCE
The judgment reaffirms the constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and individual freedom. It recognizes that religious practices and traditions cannot be shielded from scrutiny if they infringe upon fundamental rights. The court’s stance reflects a commitment to upholding the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution and ensuring that no individual is subjected to discrimination or denied equal rights. It highlights the need to strike a balance between religious practices and constitutional rights. While freedom of religion is a cherished fundamental right, it is not absolute and must be subject to reasonable restrictions. The judgment underscores that religious practices must conform to constitutional values and should not perpetuate discrimination or inequality. This balance ensures that religious freedoms are respected while upholding the principles of equality and non-discrimination.Furthermore, the judgment emphasizes the importance of inclusivity and gender justice in society. It recognizes that discriminatory practices based on biological factors, such as menstruation, have no place in a progressive and egalitarian society. The court’s decision challenges deeply ingrained patriarchal norms and highlights the imperative of promoting gender equality in all spheres of life, including religious spaces.
The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case signifies a monumental step towards achieving gender equality and upholding individual rights in religious spaces. The judgment sends a resounding message that discrimination, based on biological factors or otherwise, has no place in a society committed to justice and equality. It serves as a catalyst for social change, promoting inclusivity, and empowering individuals to challenge discriminatory practices. The case sets a powerful precedent for future cases involving conflicts between religious practices and fundamental rights, and it stands as a testament to the judiciary’s pivotal role in ensuring a just and egalitarian society.
CITATION
- Sabarimala temple case: SC backs women, says they have same right as men to enter temple By Samanwaya Rautray, ET Bureau https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sabarimala-temple-case-sc-backs-women-says-they-have-same-right-as-men-to-enter-temple/articleshow/65039266.cms?from=mdr
- Sabarimala and Women’s Identity in Kerala by Parvathi Menon https://www.jstor.org/stable/26979095
ANKITA KUMARI
1ST YEAR