CASE ANALYSIS

INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & OTHERS

Versus
STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS

(Sabarimala Temple Case)

INTRODUCTION:
This case is popularly known as Sabarimala temple case. In this case Hon’ble Supreme
Court made observations on a rule barring women from entering the Sabarimala temple in
Kerala due to biological reasons.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association and five women lawyers filed a PIL before
the Supreme Court challenging the ban of women's entry inside Sabarimala Temple.

The petition argued that the ban, enforced by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, was unconstitutional insofar as it
violated Articles 14 (equality before law), 25 and 26 (freedom of religion).

It stated that such discrimination against women was not an accepted practice in Hinduism.
A five-judge bench, led by CJI Dipak Misra, is hearing petitions demanding an end to this
discriminatory practice which the temple management claims is essential to the religious
practice of the followers of Lord Ayappa.

BACKGROUND:
Sabarimala is the second largest seasonal pilgrimage after the Islamic holy site of Mecca in
Saudi Arabia. An estimated 3.5 crore pilgrims visited the shrine last year and the total
revenue collection of the Lord Ayyappa temple for the 2016-17 festival season was Rs
243.69 crore, according to the government.

It is said that the pilgrims have to fast for 41 days to cleanse their minds before going to
Sabarimala.

It is believed that Hindu God Ayyapa meditated in Sabarimala after killing the powerful
demon Mahishi. Another mythology says that ‘Parasurama Maharshi’ uplifted Kerala from
the sea by throwing his axe and installed the idol of Ayyappa at Sabarimala.
There are restrictions on the entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years in the
shrine because the presiding deity Lord Ayyappa is considered to be a ‘naishtika
brahmachari’ (perennial celibate). The temple’s management had told SC that women of
menstruating age can’t be allowed on account of “purity”.

Critics say the restriction violates women’s fundamental right to not be discriminated
against. Sabarimala’s official website says it is “open to all, irrespective of caste, creed or
religion”.

A controversy began when Jayamala, a Kannada actor, claimed in 2006 that she
had entered the sanctum sanctorum and touched the idol of the presiding deity in
Sabarimala. With the incident leading to a storm, the Kerala government had then ordered
a crime branch probe but the case was later dropped.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Menstruation is a taboo in India, and traditionally, many Hindu temples prevent
menstruating women from entering the temple premises.

However, at the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala, all women aged 10-50 are banned
from entering.

Some say women are banned as they are considered 'unclean' during menstruation, while
scholars say that it is because Ayyappa, to whom the temple is dedicated, was celibate.
REASONS FOR INMPOSING BAN:
 Hindu temples are not just places of prayer but places where different deities also
reside. Each deity comes with his or her set of rules and traditions. Lord Avvappa -
the presiding deity of Sabarimala - is considered a celibate yogi and celibacy is the
theme of this temple.
 The Temple board says women of menstruating age are "unclean". Young women
are traditionally not allowed in the sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala, since the
deity Lord Ayyappa – wants to be away from the women of reproductive age.

SUPPORT STATEMENTS FOR IMPOSING BAN:

 There is a difference between differentiation and discrimination There is no
discrimination in not letting women inside Sabarimala temple.
 The pilgrimage ritual is also very stringent and difficult. Women in the menstrual
age cannot complete the 41 day mandala ritual because of their monthly cycle.
  Especial if the monthly cycle starts while on pilgrimage, it will weaken the body.
They need to rest and walking uphill would be very difficult as it is a long walk
against gravity.
 Also, this has been a practice from times immemorial and nobody knows its genesis.
Some believe there is rationality behind this practice others believe it is for the
safety and sanctity of the temple and people.
 One cannot deny that this practice is deeply buried in the hearts and blood of
devotees, especially who observe the 41 day penance.

ISSUES:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 25(1)

Article 25(1) of the Constitution confers the fundamental rights on all persons to
freely profess, practice and propagate their own religion.

It is however subject to restrictions on the grounds of public order, morality and

health. It is also subject to other provisions of Part III.

Essential characteristics of the Deity in Sabarimala

The Deity in the Sabarimala temple has a characteristic of its own. The contention
that has been raised by the Board, contention that has been urged by the Thantri and
the contention otherwise urged by the NSS is that ‘Naisthik Brahmacharya’ is one of
the characteristics of the idol. Such a characteristic is an integral part of the divinity
attached to the deity. Thantris of the temple have always maintained it to be so.

The concept of “Naisthik Brahmacharya’ being the characteristic of the deity in

Sabarimala was urged before the High Court when it permitted parties to adduce
evidence as well, in the High Court judgement.

RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 14

Article 14 of the constitution which is right to equality – would be violated if women

are not allowed to enter the temples citing customary reasons.
1991 KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
A division bench of the Kerala High Court had, on April 5, 1991 examined the Sabarimala
Thanthri (Chief Priest) and upheld the restrictions on women of a particular age group
offering worship at the shrine.

It held that the prohibition imposed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (the Temple
board) was not violative of Article 15, 25 and 26 of the constitution. Nor was it violative of
the provisions of the Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act,
1965 as the prohibition was only in respect of women of a particular age group and not
women as a class.

The High Court examined Ravivarma Raja of the Pandalam royal family, to which the
temple belonged and the Ayyappa Seva Sangham secretary. The verdictreferred to the
belief that the deity is a ‘Naisthik brahmachari’ (an unmarried celibate).

SUPREME COURT ON SABARIMALA CASE:

The SC had referred the case on women's entry in Sabarimala to a Constitutional bench,
which will decide if the current ban violates fundamental rights.

It will also decide whether Sabarimala devotees form a separate religious group and if the
temple can enforce a ban on females in the name of 'morality'.
12 April, 2016
The arguments that the tradition to forbid women in Sabarimala had been observed "before
the Constitution came into being" failed to move the SC.

SC said its decision on the entry of women would be based on constitutional principles
which cannot be overridden by tradition.

SC said it would examine if it was permissible constitutionally for any institution to pass
orders forbidding women's entry.
19 April, 2016
The Supreme Court stated that the ban on the entry of women of a particular age group
cannot be a part of a temple board's right to manage religious affairs.

The statements were made while hearing a public interest litigation against the ban on
entry of women in Kerala's Sabarimala temple.

The court said said the ban was derogatory towards women and their dignity.
18 July, 2018

The Supreme Court said the ban on women entry in Kerala's Sabarimala shrine is against
the Constitution.

The bench asked temple authorities on what basis they denied entry to women and
observed it violated the constitutional mandate.

Hearing arguments from both sides, Justice DY Chandrachud said, "Every woman is also
the creation of God and why should there be discrimination against them in employment or
worship."

Further, CJI Misra said, "Once you open it (the temple) for the public, anybody can go."

Sabarimala deity has the right to privacy, Said SC

The presiding deity of Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, Lord Ayyappa, is a perpetual

minor and has rights including the right to privacy with regard to certain rites
observed at the shrine, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday. The observation
came as the court concluded hearing on the issue of ban on women from entering the
temple.

“But whether the right of privacy is the same as reflected in the judgment that
recognizes privacy as a fundamental right will have to be examined,” said Chief
Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra in reference to the argument that the deity has
some fundamental rights.