INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS THE STATE OF KERALA (SABARIMALA JUDGMENT)
The Supreme Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association Vs. The State of Kerala (2018) 9 SCR 561 held that exclusion of entry of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years to Sabarimala Temple is a clear violation of the right of Hindu women to practice their religious beliefs under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Writ Petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions against the Government of Kerala, Devaswom Board of Travacore, Chief Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and the District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta to ensure entry of female devotees between the age group of 10 to 50 years to the Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala which has been denied to them on the basis of certain custom and usage. The petition also sought declaration of Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 51 A (e) of the Constitution of India. Three judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to Constitution Bench for determination of the issues.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
Followers of Lord Ayyappa whether Religious Denomination
The Supreme Court observed that Article 26 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every religious denomination the right – (i) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, (ii) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, (iii) to own and acquire movable and immovable property and (iv) to administer such property in accordance with law. For any religious mutt, sect, body, sub-sect or any section thereof to be designated as a religious denomination, it must be a collection of individuals having a collective common faith, a common organization which adheres to the said common faith, and last but not the least, the said collection of individuals must be labeled, branded and identified by a distinct name.
The Supreme Court observed that there is no identified group called ayyappans. Every Hindu can go to the temple. There is nothing on record to show that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa have any common religious tenets peculiar to themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being other than those which are common to the Hindu Religion. Thus, devotees of Lord Ayyappa are just Hindus and do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
Enforceability of Fundamental Rights under Article 25
Sabarimala Temple is a public temple. Travancore Devaswom Board having control and supervision of Sabarimala will be covered under definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court observed that Article 25 (1), by employing the expression “all persons” demonstrates that the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion is available, though subject to the restrictions delineated in Article 25 (1) itself, to every person including women. The right guaranteed under Article 25 (1) has nothing to do with gender or, for that matter, certain physiological factors, specifically attributable to women. Women of any age group have as much a right as men to visit and enter a temple in order to freely practice a religion as guaranteed under Article 25 (1).
The Supreme Court observed that the impugned Rule 3 (b) of the 1965 Rules framed in pursuance of the 1965 Rules, that stipulates exclusion of entry of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years is clear violation of the right of such women to practice their religious beliefs, in consequence, make their fundamental right under Article 25 (1) a dead letter. As long as the devotees, irrespective of their gender and/or age group seeking entry to temple of any caste are Hindus, it is their legal right to enter into a temple and offer prayers.
Neither public morality nor public health will be at peril by allowing entry of women devotees of the age group of 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala temple for offering their prayers. The notions of public order, morality and health cannot be used as colorable device to restrict the freedom to freely practice religion and discriminate against women of the age group of 10 to 50 years by denying them their legal right to enter and offer their prayers at the Sabarimala temple for the simple reason that public morality must yield to constitutional morality.
Whether exclusion of women Essential Practice of Hindu Religion
The Supreme Court observed that the practice of exclusion of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years could not be regarded as an essential part of Hindu Religion. In the absence of any scriptural or textual evidence, exclusionary practice followed at the Sabarimala temple can not be given the status of an essential practice of Hindu Religion. By allowing women to enter into the Sabarimala temple for offering prayers, it cannot be imagined that the nature of Hindu religion would be fundamental altered or changed in any manner.
Validity of Rule 3 (b) of the 1965 Rules
Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 declares that every place of public worship which is open to Hindus generally or to any section or class thereof shall be open to all sections and classes of Hindus. Rule 3 (b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 put restrictions women by custom or usage to enter a place of public worship. The law is well-settled on the point that when a rule-making power is conferred under any stature on an authority, the said power has to be exercised within the confines of the statute and no transgression of the same is permissible. A cursory reading of the Rule 3 (b) divulges that it is ultra vires the 1965 Act.
_______________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.