Indian Young Lawyers Association & ors. vs. The state of Kerala & ors.
Writ petition (civil) no.373 of 2006

Bench
Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice A.N. Khanwilkar, Justice Rohintan Nariman, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

Facts of the Case
Sabrimala is a Hindu pilgrimage centre located at the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghat mountain ranges of Pathanamthitta District. It is one of the largest annual pilgrimages in the world with an estimated 45-50 million devotees visiting every year. It is an ancient temple of Ayyappan. The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) manages the temple. The deity which is worshiped is a ‘naishtika brahmachari’ (eternal celibate).

Purity is the essence of devotees that visit the temple. The devotees are expected to follow a Vratham (41 days austerity period) prior to their pilgrimage. During these 41 days, devotees need to strictly follow lacto-vegetarian diet, follow celibacy, follow teetotalism, and not use any profanity and have to control anger, allow the hair and nails to grow without cutting.

Women are considered as impure during menstruation in the hindu traditions and therefore, restriction has been imposed upon the entry of women aged 10-50 years old.
In 1990, S Mahendran filed a petition in Kerala High Court alleging ban on young women visiting temple. Justice K. Paripoornan and Justice K. Balanarayana Marar, in its judgment restricted entry of women above the age of 10 and below the age 50 to the Sabrimala Shrine as they were the menstruating age and also that only the ‘tantri’ (priest) were empowered to decide on traditions.

In the year 2006, six women filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court alleging that the prohibition on the basis of biological factors are in violation of fundamental rights and also questioned the validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which authorises restriction on women of “menstruating age”.

Issues
Restriction on entry of women based on biological factors is violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), Article 17 (Untouchability) and any such practice protected under Article 25 (Freedom to Practice and Propagation of Religion) as mortality.

Whether Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 permits ‘religious denomination’ to ban women of particular age? If yes, does it violate Article 14 and Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution?
Does Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character? If yes, is it permissible on the part of a religious denomination managed by a statutory authority and financed under Article 290-A of Indian Constitution out of a consolidated fund of Tamil Nadu and Kerala to indulge in such practices that are violative of constitutional principles enshrined in Article 14, 15(3), 39(a) and 51-A(e)?
Whether the practice of not including women constitute an essential religious practice under Article 25 and can such a religious denomination claim that they come under the rights to manage their own affairs relating to religion?

Judgment
The apex court, after considering the contentions on the both sides, derived at a judgment in the favour of the petitioner in 4:1 majority, allowing women of all ages in the Ayyappa Temple at Sabrimala, Kerala. The bench said that “banning the entry of women in Sabrimala Temple is gender discrimination and the practice violates the rights of Hindu women”.

Observations made by the Judges
Justice Deepak Mishra and Justice Khanwilkar observed that any rule or pr active which undermines and discriminates women’s dignity violates of Article 14, 15 and also of Article 25, which equally grants, irrespective of their sex, right to freely practice religion.

The ambit of Article 17 has widened as exclusion of women from religion place because they menstruate is a form of discrimination considered under the article. The contention made by the respondent about mensuration was held as unconstitutional.

Justice Chandrachud found that exclusion of women fails to ground itself on the basis of either an obligatory part of religion or has been a consistent practice from many years as no evidence has been shown to back the contention made by respondent. The practice only commenced in 1950 and therefore can not be called as an ageless practice, practiced since immemorial and cannot be considered as “essential religious practice” under Article 25.

Considering the nature of the Sabrimala temple, where all Hindus and people belonging to other regions can go and worship and along with other Ayyappa temples where women are not prohibited, it was found that the temple does not constitute a separate ‘denomination’ and it was held that fundamental rights chapter applies to the temple as it is funded under Article 290-A of the constitution.

It was held that Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 is in contravention with its parent act, wherein under section 3, discrimination against any ‘class’ of Hindu is prohibited and women between the age group of 10-50 did form a ‘class’, which are subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. Such an exclusion is in contravention with the dignity of women and is at odds with constitutional values. Moreover, Justice Nariman held it contrary to Article 15(1) of the Constitution and strikes it down along with Justice Chandrachud, Justice Mishra and Justice Khanwilkar.

Observations made by Justice Indu Malhotra
Justice Malhotra was the only judge to give a dissenting verdict and observed that the exclusionary practice is in accordance with the tenets of Ayyappan community and does not violate Article 25 as it guarantees every individual to freely profess, propagate and practice their faith in accordance with the ‘ tenets’ of their religion. She said that ‘Ayyappan community’ is a separate religious denomination, which is protected under Article 26. Justice Malhotra observed that courts do not have any power to intervene in personal religious matter and such practices should not be viewed with rationality. She also ruled that Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 is a mere exception for the benefit of religious denomination.