In a 4:1 judgment, the 5-membered constitution bench of India’s Supreme Court ruled in favour of women of all ages being allowed to worship at Sabarimala Temple in the case Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. the State of Kerala. The court stated that devotion cannot be discriminatory towards gender. Justice Dipak Misra, Justice RF Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar, and Justice DY Chandrachud represented the majority. Conversely, the lone woman judge, Justice Indu Malhotra, disagreed.
The Controversial Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Worship
The petitions questioned the constitutional validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. This rule restricted women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple. It was considered ultra-vires Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, which mandates that public places of worship must be open to all sections and classes of Hindus.
Details of Sabarimala Temple
Sabarimala Temple, located within the Western Ghats’ forests in Kerala’s Pathanamthitta district, is managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). The temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. Women of menstrual age (between 10 and 50 years) were traditionally prohibited from temple entry due to the belief that Lord Ayyappa, the temple deity, is a “Naisthik Brahmachari”. Entry of young women was considered detrimental to the idol’s “celibacy” and “austerity”.
Entry Prohibitions and Constitutional Validity
The petitioners argued against the ban, stating that it was not a religious core foundation. They claimed that barring women from the temple based on the irrational and obsolete concept of “purity” violated equality clauses in the Constitution, including Article 15(1)and Article 25(1).
The 1991 Kerala High Court Decision
In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld the prohibition on young women entering the Sabarimala Shrine. The High Court justified the restriction, citing the deity’s ‘Naisthik Brahmachari’ nature as a significant reason.
The Supreme Court’s Majority Judgement
The Supreme Court ruled Rule 3(b) as ultra-vires to the Constitution, as well as Section 3 and Section 4 of the 1965 Act. The prohibition was criticized as “hegemonic patriarchy” and called out as discriminatory based on features exclusive to gender like menstruation. The court also held that Ayyappa devotees do not form a separate denomination but are part of Hindu worshippers.
The Dissenting Opinion of Justice Indu Malhotra
Justice Indu Malhotra disagreed with the majority opinion, arguing that courts cannot invoke rationality notions in religion matters. She claimed the determination of what constituted an essential practice should be decided within the religion, expressing it as a matter of personal faith. Malhotra emphasized the freedom to practice beliefs, as provided by Article 25 of the Constitution.
