Case Brief: Indian Young Lawyers Association V. The State of Kerala & Ors | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Historical Background

• The Sabarimala Temple is an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, located in Kerala, India, at an elevation of 1260 meters.
• Lord Ayyappa is revered for his celibacy, and pilgrims visiting the temple are expected to observe strict vows for forty-one days.
• The temple's legend portrays Lord Ayyappa as a "Naishtika Brahmacharya," emphasizing his power from abstaining from sexual activities.
• The temple's origin story involves the union of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu, with Lord Ayyappa being born from this union.
• The Travancore Devaswom Board issued notifications in 1955 and 1956, restricting entry for Ayyappans not following vows and women between ages ten and fifty-five.

Notifications by Travancore Devaswom Board

• Notification dated 21 October 1955: Stated that Ayyappans not observing vows and women aged ten to fifty-five were prohibited from entering the temple.
• Notification dated 27 November 1956: Reiterated the restrictions on entry for those not following vows and women within the specified age range.
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Coram: Former Chief Justice of India Justice Dipak Mishra, Justice A.M Khanwilkar, Justice RF Naraiaman, Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra.
• Theme: Section 377 IPC is not a crime anymore
• Subject: Constitutional law
• Judgement: India

Facts of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala & Ors

• The writ petition concerning the entry of women at Sabrimala Temple was initiated in 2006, raising questions about fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
• Sabrimala Temple, while open to all irrespective of background, is identified as a denominational temple asserting the right to self-governance in religious matters.
• An issue arose regarding the complete exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from the temple premises and worship due to biological reasons specific to women, allegedly rooted in religious customs.
• The key concern was whether this exclusion violated women's rights under Article 25 and if Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, along with Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, infringed upon their fundamental rights under Article 25(1) and Article 15(1).
• The legality of these rules and their alignment with the constitutional provisions were brought into question.

Issue in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala & Ors

• The Sabarimala Temple, located in the Western Ghats in Kerala, restricts the entry of women aged 10-50 due to the deity Lord Ayyappa being a perennial celibate.
• In 2006, a controversy arose when Jayamala, a Kannada actor, claimed to have entered the temple sanctum and touched the idol, leading to a government probe.

Submission on the Behalf of Petitioners

• The petitioners argued that Sabarimala Temple does not qualify as a religious denomination as its practices are similar to other Hindu temples and its administration is overseen by a statutory body.
• They contended that the temple's practices violate constitutional principles of equality and liberty, as well as the prohibition of untouchability under Article 17.
• They emphasized that the exclusion of women based on physiological factors violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.

Submission on the Behalf of Respondents

• The respondents highlighted the temple's dedication to Lord Ayyappa, a deity symbolizing hyper masculinity, born from the union of Shiva and Mohini (Vishnu in a female form).
• They explained that women are unable to complete a 41-day Vruthum due to menstruation, a custom where women avoid temples during their periods.

Court's Ruling

• The court found that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not meet the criteria to be considered a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution.
• Excluding women from religious worship contradicts constitutional values of liberty, dignity, and equality. Such practices are against constitutional morality.
• The court deemed the exclusion of women from Sabarimala Temple as non-essential and violative of women's dignity and equal citizenship rights.
• Notifications prohibiting women's entry were declared unconstitutional, and rules enforcing such exclusions were found to be against the law.

Judgement: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala & Ors

• Definition of Culture:
  • Edward B. Taylor defined culture as the complex whole including knowledge, belief, art, morals, laws, customs, and other capabilities acquired by individuals in society.
• Custom as Part of Culture:
  • Custom is an established mode of social behavior within a community, embodying principles of justice and public utility.
• Role of Religion in Social Integration:
  • Religion serves as an integrative and legitimizing institution that unites people in a cohesive moral order.
  • It helps individuals manage tensions and fears by providing rituals to propitiate supernatural forces.
• Views on Religion:
  • Karl Marx viewed religion as a coping mechanism that distracts people from societal issues.
  • Fundamentalism opposes intellectualism and worldly accommodation, emphasizing traditional spirituality and literal faith.
• Religion and Identity:
  • Religion provides individuals with identity, spirituality, and a sense of divinity.
  • It influences politics, social reforms, attitudes, and way of life in India.
• Gender Inequality and Religious Practices:
  • Gender discrimination in society contradicts the respect women are given in religious contexts.
  • Societal norms and traditions can be detrimental to women's health and societal development.
• Constitutional Morality:
  • The state intervenes in religious affairs when they violate basic rights protected by the Constitution, including morality.
  • Constitutional morality guides actions to align with the principles of the Constitution, emphasizing rule of law and non-arbitrariness.

Current Scenario of the Sabrimala Review Bench Case

• The Sabrimala Review bench, consisting of five judges, referred the case to a larger bench on November 14, 2019. The larger bench comprises nine judges, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI) S A Bobde and Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S Abdul Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant.
• The case was pursued following the Sabrimala 2018 judgment, which highlighted that Ayappa devotees did not constitute a separate religious denomination.
• Key questions raised before the Supreme Court included an analysis of the scope and definition of 'morality' under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, exploring the inclusion of 'constitutional morality.'
• Additionally, the discussion extended to whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 are subject to other provisions of the Constitution apart from public order, morality, and health.
• The examination of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25, and the interplay between the rights of individuals under Article 25 and those of religious denominations under Article 26, were crucial aspects of the case.
• The case also addressed the scope of judicial review concerning a religious practice as outlined in Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
• Another significant issue for consideration was the interpretation of the term "Sections of Hindus" in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, particularly regarding whether a person outside a specific religious denomination can challenge its practices through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
• The Supreme Court has the authority to exercise unlimited jurisdiction, even when reviewing the Sabrimala Judgment, allowing it to refer legal questions and similar cases with related issues to a larger bench.