Open Access Research Article
A Case Study of Sabarimala Temple Case: Indian Young Lawyers v. State of Kerela – By Vaasawa Sharma
Published Paper
Article Details
A CASE
STUDY OF SABARIMALA TEMPLE CASE: INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS V. STATE OF KERELA
Authored by - Vaasawa Sharma
Designation: Assistant Professor,
Starex Univresity, Gurugram
G-mail: vaasu0044@gmail.com
Introduction
Sabarimala Temple is situated in the
state of Kerela, it is dedicated to lord Ayyappa who was a Naishtik Brahmachari.
Due to this reason, the women between the age group of 10-50 years were not
allowed to enter the temple to worship lord Ayyappa. But where the
discrimination on the religious practices is constitutional? It is violative of
right to equality mentioned under the Constitution of India. Sabarimala Temple
is maintained by statutory authority Travancore Devaswom Board. It was
formulated under Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950. With the passage
of time, the dispute between this religious custom and women rights. In today’s
modern world, the citizens of India cannot be discriminated on any ground. So,
the division of religion and their deities is the infringement of the rights of
women.
Facts of
the Case
When the question about the rights of
women arose, the petition was filed in 2006 concerning the entry of women in
Sabarimala Temple. It was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by
the registered association of Indian Young Lawyers. It was contended in the
petition that the ban on the entry of women between the age of 10-50 years
needs to be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of India has
considered the petition and finally in 2008, the three-judge bench was
constituted to discuss this matter. In the year 2016, the Supreme Court of
India further contended that are these restrictions reasonable? Later in 2017,
the case was transferred to the Constitutional Bench by the Supreme Court of
India. It was contended in the petition that, Rule 3(b) of Kerela Hindu places
of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 framed in relation to
the section 4 of the Kerela Hindu places of Public Worship Act, 1965 is
unconstitutional and it is violative of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 51 A(e) of the Indian
Constitution.[1]
Issues:
The following issues were raised in
the Sabarimala Case:
1. Whether the practice of exclusion of
females is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14,15 and 17. In addition
to this, the Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution are also infringed
by this religious practice.
2. Whether this religious practice comes
under the purview of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution?
3.
Whether
the Ayappa Temple comes under the purview of Religious denomination under
Article 26 of the Indian Constitution? If yes, then another issue arises that
whether such denomination is managed by the statutory authority? Also, whether
these derogatory practices come under the ambit of Article 14, 15 (3), 39 (a)
and 51 A (e)? Whether Rule 3 of 1965 Rules permits religious denomination to prohibit
entry of women between age of 10 to 50? And if so, would it not against the
Articles 14 and 15(3) of Indian constitution?
Comments
Arguments of Petitioners
·
The petitioners contended that the practice of
banning the women to enter into the Sabarimala Temple is “discrimination” on
the ground of gender. It was also added by the petitioners that the biological
feature of menstruation among women is natural and cannot be considered as the
point of discrimination.
·
Another point added by the petitioners was that,
these discriminatory practices are violative of Article 15 (1).
·
Sabarimala Temple is the public place and everyone
has equal access to it, irrespective of the gender. So, it is violative of
Article 15 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.
·
Right to worship is also violated if
this discriminatory practice continues to be followed in India.
·
It is gender-based inequality.
·
It was also contended that lord
Ayyappa do not comes under the separate religious denomination merely, of the
fact that, large devotees worship lord Ayyappa.
·
The restriction on women devotees is
not reasonable and justified.
·
The Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution is also violative of such religious practice.
·
Another major point contended by the
petitioners was, the temple was managed by the statutory authority, that comes
under the definition of “other authority”, so the fundamental rights must be
respected by them.
·
The right to profess and practice any
religion is provided to us, irrespective of the fact that, the person is a male
or a female, so there arises no question of excluding women devotees.[2]
Arguments
of Respondents
·
The
respondents contended that, merely barring women between the age of 10-50 years
does not amount to discrimination. It is the part of India’s custom and usages
since time immemoirial.
·
Another
point added was, women were free to enter into the temple of lord Ayyappa so,
partial discrimination does not amount to the violation of the provisions of
the Constitution of India.
·
Lord
Ayyappa was a Naishtik Brahmachari, so, the restrictions imposed on women
devotees was reasonable and justifies to protect the belief and faith of
Hindus.
·
According
to Article 13 (3) of the Indian Constitution, laws include custom and usage
too, so this practice was the custom which is pre-constitutional.
·
Another
point added by the respondents was, Article 26 is only subject to public order,
health and morality and the other provisions of part III of the Constitution
are excluded. The Right to profess, propagate religion of devotees of Lord
Ayyappa can only be preserved only when the Brahmachari character of Lord
Ayyappa is preserved.
·
It was also added, that women are the
centre of attraction everywhere, so to preserve the religious sanctity of the
temple, women are excluded, so that the sacred and pure character of the temple
can be preserved.
·
This customary practice does not
promote the discrimination based on caste i.e. untouchability. So, it is not
violative of Article 17 of the Constitution of India.
Findings of the Court
The court held that according to
Article 25 of the Constitution, right to religion is irrespective of the gender
discrimination. So, this exclusionary practice is violative of the right of
women who wants to worship Lord Ayyappa.
It was also added by the court that, there are certain evidences that
shows that Lord Ayyappa is not a separate religious denomination under Art.26.
Such activities to show the devotion are common in Hindus but it does not mean
that, it is a distinct religion. There were no sufficient evidences to prove
that these exclusionary practices are essential to be followed in Hindu
religion. Another point that was clarifies by the court was, the definition of
the term “morality”. It was held that, morality here does not mean societal
morality instead it was considering as constitutional morality.
Conclusion
Sabarimala Temple case was a landmark judgment passed by the Indian
Judiciary in which, the difference between societal and constitutional morality
was figured out. Women were always considered as inferior gender as compared to
men. So, is it justified that women cannot worship the particular god, just
because of the gender biasness. Sometimes, the customary practices are such
that they are violative of law. In this case, this exclusionary practice was
simply, the violation of the fundamental rights of women. However, there are
several other lacunas in this judgment, so, the review petition was also filed
in the court. Later on, the case was directed to
seven-judge bench.
[1] V. Bijukumar, (2019). When
Religious Faith Mutilates Gender Equality: Women Entry in Sabarimala Temple in
Kerala, 4, IJWSC, 235, 238–244
[2] Rashmi Kumari, Menstruating women and celibate gods: a discourse
analysis of women’s entry into Sabarimala temple in Kerala, India, TWT, 290, 288-305, (2019)
Article Information
A Case Study of Sabarimala Temple Case: Indian Young Lawyers v. State of Kerela – By Vaasawa Sharma
Authors: Vaasawa Sharma
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/11/11
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.