Constitutional Law

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala

(2019) 11 SCC 1

Citation: (2019) 11 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 28 September 2018
Bench: Dipak Misra C.J.; A.M. Khanwilkar; R.F. Nariman; D.Y. Chandrachud; Indu Malhotra

Facts

The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa in the form of a Naishtika Brahmachari, or eternally celibate deity.
Women between approximately ten and fifty years of age were excluded from entering the temple.
The restriction was supported by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965.
The petitioners argued that the exclusion violated women’s rights under Articles 14, 15 and 25.
The Travancore Devaswom Board and supporting groups argued that Ayyappa devotees formed a religious denomination and that the exclusion preserved the deity’s celibate character.
A five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a 4:1 decision.

Whether Ayyappa devotees constituted a separate religious denomination under Article 26.
Whether excluding women was an essential religious practice.
Whether women possess an equal Article 25 right to worship.
Whether Rule 3(b) was consistent with the parent legislation and constitutional equality.

Article 25 protects the religious freedom of every individual, including women.
Article 26 protects denominational autonomy only where the group has a distinct faith, organisation and name.
A practice seeking constitutional protection must be essential to the religion or denomination.
Religious autonomy is subject to other constitutional limitations, including dignity, equality and individual freedom.
A subordinate rule cannot authorise exclusion where the parent Act requires Hindu places of worship to be open to all sections and classes.
Justice Chandrachud additionally considered the exclusion a form of social stigma resembling notions of purity and pollution.
Justice Nariman emphasised that individual rights under Article 25 could not be defeated by an unsupported denominational claim.
Dissent of Justice Indu Malhotra
She considered Ayyappa devotees a religious denomination.
Courts should not decide whether a religious practice was rational or socially acceptable.
In her view, the exclusion was connected with the distinct celibate form of the deity and did not amount to general discrimination against women.
She also expressed concern about persons outside a faith challenging its internal practices.

Majority
The majority held that Ayyappa devotees did not constitute a separate religious denomination distinct from Hinduism.
They followed ordinary Hindu beliefs and did not possess the independent organisational identity required by Article 26.
The exclusion of women was not shown to be indispensable to Hindu religion.
Women were not asking the Court to alter the deity’s character or ritual worship; they sought equal access as devotees.
Preventing entry because of menstruation treated a biological characteristic as a basis for religious incapacity.
This impaired women’s dignity and equal status.

By a 4:1 majority, the exclusion of women aged ten to fifty was declared unconstitutional.