Indian Young Lawyers Association
& Others v. State of Kerala & Others
summary
1)
Justice
Deepak Mishra, CJI
2)
JusticeA.M.
Khanwilkar
3)
Justice
Dr D.Y. Chandrachud
4)
JusticeR.F.
Nariman
5)
JusticeIndu
Malhotra
Case
time timeline
· 1991- The Kerala High Court expressly prohibited the entry of women
during their “menstruating years” between ages 10 to 50 from
entering the shrine. The reason by court was that it is an age-old custom and
it was considered as a flawed verdict.
· 2006- The Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged this unreasonable
verdictthrough a Public Interest Litigation. They challenged it on the ground
of the fact that this custom was violative of major Constitutional provisions.
This case was referred to as a 5-judge bench led by Justice Dipak Mishra. He
was the Chief Justice of India at the time.
· 2018- lifted the ban and ruled that women of all age can enter the Sabarimala
shrine in Kerala.
Rules/
Provisions
The major provisions involved are:
§ Articles 14, 15, 17 of the Constitution of India
§ Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India
§ Article 290-A of the Constitution of India
§ Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of
Entry) Rules, 1965.
This case comment will be dealing
with all the major Constitutional provisions involved along with other statutes
and rules directly impacting it only.
Facts
of the case
The
writ Petition under Article 32 of constitution was filed in public interest by
a registered association of Young Lawyers against the Government of Kerela,
Devaswom of Board of Travancore, chief Thanthri of Sabrimala Temple and the
District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta to ensure the entry of female devotees
between the age group of 10 to 50 years whose entry was denied to the Lord
Ayyappa temple at Sabrimala, Kerala on the basis of custom and usage.
The writ Petition focused on the
issue of gender equality. Petitioner have inter alia stated that they have
inter alia stated that Sabrimala temple issue came into their knowledge through
three newspaper articles:
• Scent
of a Women by Burkha Dutt: Hindustan Times (1 July
2006)
• Touching
Faith by Sharvani Pandit: Times of India (1 July
2006)
• Keeping
the faith, Losing our Religion by Vir Shanghvi:
Sunday Hindustan Times (2 July 2006)
In
The writ petition it was urged to declare Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places
of Public Worship (Authorization of entry) Rules,1965 framed in exercise of the
powers conferred by the Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of public worship
(Authorization of entry) Rules,1965 as unconstitutional being violative of
Articles 14. 15, 25 and 51(e) of Constitution of India and it further passed
direction for the safety of the women.
ISSUEs
The issues that were framed before the
court and argued to find whether the restriction of women entry in
unconstitutional.
a)
Whether the restriction of particular
gender (women) entry into the temple amount to discrimination and it is
violative of Article 14, 15, 17, 25 & 26.
b)
Whether the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship Act permits the restriction of women?
c) Whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public
Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules permits ‘religious denomination’ to ban
entry of women between the age of 10 to 50 years?
d) Whether
Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character? Whether it is hit by Article
290-A of the Constitution of India or not?
Decision
of the court 4:1
The judgement of the court was delivered by CJ Deepak Mishra, A.M. Khanwilkar,
Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, R.F. Nariman each gave a separate concurring opinion. The
only lady judge on the bench, Indu Malhotra, J rendered a dissenting opinion.
Decision of the Majority
· It was observed that restrictions are partiality refraining the entry of
women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entering the Sabrimala temple.
This prohibition includes violation of right to equality, freedom of movement, right
against gender discrimination and freedom of religion under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.
· The right to practice religion itself, has been guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution and cannot be override by the right to manage its own religious
affairs under Section 26
· As per CJ Deepak
Mishra and A.M. Khanwilkar, J. “Devotees of Lord Ayyappa are exclusively
Hindu and do not constitute a separate religious domination.”
· The practice of exclusion of women of certain age group cannot be
regarded as an essential part as claimed by the respondent board. It would
violate Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(e) which provides that “It shall
be the duty of every citizen of India to promote harmony and the spirit of
common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious,
linguistic and regional section or sectional diversities; to renounce practices
derogatory to the dignity of the women.”
Dissenting of opinion
· The
supporters of ban believe that they entitled to the protection under Article 26
(Freedom to manage religious affairs). The deity in Sabrimala temple is
considered as “NaishtikBhrahmachari” (which means eternal celibate)and
it is predicting that the presence of a menstruating woman would cause
hindrance to his meditation.
- In our Hindu dharma, many of
us profess faith and belief towards deity and no one try to interfere
towards religious, so it is evident that Sabarimala was not created by any
Act of Kerala State Assembly or by any Parliament but is based on faith
and if this faith is not respected then it would not be the same
Sabarimala today.
- “In a
secular country, issues of deep religious faith and sentiments, must not
ordinarily be interfered by courts” – Justice Indu Malhotra
- According to the opposing
party, Article 15 does not mention right to access public temples i.e.,
religious institution, but only provides right to access places such as
hotels, shops etc.
- Justice Indu Malhotra was of
opinion that the limited restriction on the entry of women of certain age
does not fall within the purview of Article 17.
Conclusion
· In this case the apex court tries to make a bride between constitutional rights and social reality where there is a distinction between them. The judgement was given in 4:1 majority which supports the entry of women into the temple, but it is also important to protect the heritage of the temple. Women have been discriminated not only on the basis of biological factors but also due to orthodox ill practices of the Hindu religion. The constitution of India prescribes non-discriminatory rights to all citizens regardless of status, age, sex, caste, creed, gender, etc. Only positive discrimination is allowed on the basis of the interpretation principle of reasonable classification. Judicial activism has played an important role in this case.
· It is true that women are discriminated in many ways with respected age, sex etc. but in concern of this case women can enter other Ayyappa temples which did not affect their fundamental rights and the reason for ban the entry is to protect the particular nature of deity presented in Ayyappa.Altogether the law interpreted under this case is a good law. After 12 years of the litigatory struggle, women have found their rightful freedom, equality, and dignity as under Article 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian constitution.
· The Sabarimala judgment is testamentary of the Apex Court’s impeccable patience and clear judicial interpretation of laws in the interest of the general public good. Apex court has tried to bridge the gap between constitutional ideas and social reality.
0 Comments