Indian Young Lawyers

Association & Ors vs. The

Presented By:
• Shruti Utekar , Roll No 118
• Aamina Hashmi, Roll No 112
• Dipti Patil , Roll No 82
Internal purpose – remove from final
presentation
• In-act ( case law and presenters intro)

• Introduction - Shruti

• History -- Shruti

• Facts -- Dipti

• Bench --- Dipti

• Issues raised -- Aamina

• Arguments from Petitioner -- Shruti

• Arguments from Respondent -- Dipti

• Judgement -- Shruti

• Impact of judgement -- Aamina

• Shruti- Hey Dipti.. I'm good. I was just reading a news article about Retired Supreme court Justice Indu Malhotra
visiting Sabarimala Temple a few weeks ago in Kerala.

• Dipti- Oh yeah! I remember a few years back there was a landmark Supreme court judgement centered on entry of
women in Sabarimala temple.

• Shruti- The case was a monumental decision indeed. My friend Aamina who is a native of Kerala State would also
know some details about the case.

• Aamina- Its a highly controversial case and continues to be a political and religious landmine in my state even after
the ruling of 2018.

• Dipti- Amazing.. Let's discuss this interesting case.

• The case deals with an important aspect i.e. “Entry of Women in Sabarimala Temple”.

• There were many issues raised in which it was argued by petitioners that provisions related to the restriction
of the women entry in Temple are unconstitutional as it violates Article 14, Article 15, Article 17, Article 25,
Article 26 of the Indian Constitution.

• The Sabarimala Temple is situated in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the western ghat mountain ranges of
Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. This temple is famous for Lord Ayyappa.

• It forbids the entry of women in their menstruating age that are between the age of 10 to 50 years stated
that it is a place of worship.
History
• The Sabarimala Temple, Kerala

• Had restricted entry for women of menstruating age.

• In 1991, A group of five women lawyers had moved to the Apex Court challenging the decision of the Kerala
High Court.

• In 2006, the ban was opposed by the Young Lawyer's Association

• Later in 2008, the PIL was heard by a constitutional bench including “the Former Chief Justice on India”
Dipak Mishra.
Facts
• In 1990, a case was filed in Kerala High Court demanding for the prohibition on the passage of females inside the Sabarimala temple.

• The Kerala High Court had maintained the ban of females of specific age section inside the sacred place of Lord Ayyappa.

• In 2006, a case was filed under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court by the registered association of Indian Young Lawyers demanding
entry of females between 10 to 50 years.

• After 2 years in 2008, the matter was referred to the three-judge bench.

• In January 2016 Supreme Court of India brought up issues against such bans and said that this isn’t as protected under constitutional morality.

• In April 2016, the Kerala government answered that it is to protect the fundamental right to practice and propagate the religion of Sabarimala devotees.

• In 2017 Supreme Court of India referred the matter to the Constitutional bench.

• In the writ petition, it was contended that Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu places of worship (authorisation of entry) rules, 1965 (hereinafter alluded as
1965 guidelines) outlined in the exercise of the forces given by sec 4 of the Kerala Hindu place of worship (authorisation of section) act, 1965
(hereinafter alluded as 1965 Act) is illegal on the grounds that it disregards Articles 14,15,25 and 51A(e) of Indian Constitution.
Bench
• In this case there were 5 Judges constitutional bench including Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra, Justice A.
M khanwilkar, Justice R F Nariman, Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra.

• Petitioner (s): Indian Young Lawyer Association; Dr. Laxmi Shastri; Prerna Kumari; Alka Sharma; Sudha Pal.

• Respondent (s): The State of Kerala; Travancore Devaswom Board; chief Tanthri of Sabarmial Temple; District
Magistrate of Pathanamthitta; Nair Service Society; Akhil Bhartiya Ayyapa Seva Sangham; Ayyappa Seva
Samithi; Ayyappa Pooja Samithi; Kerala Kshetra Samarak Shana Samithi; Pandalam Kottaram Nirvahaka
Sangham; Sabarimala custom Protection Forum.

•  Petitioner’s Lawyers: R.P Gupta; Raja Ramachandran; K.Ramamoorthy.

•  Respondent’s Lawyers: Jaideep Gupta; Liz Mathew; Venugopal; V.Giri; State of Kerala; Rakesh Dwivedi; K.
Radhakrishanan.
Issues Raised
• Is the exclusionary practice, which depends on the normal biological process to the female gender orientation is violative
of the very essence of Articles 14,15 and 17 and not secured by morality as utilized in Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian
constitution?

• Is this exclusionary practice establishes a fundamental religious practise under Art 25 of the Indian constitution?

• Is the Ayappa Temple is a Religious group under Art 26 of the Indian constitution? If yes, regardless of whether such
denomination managed by the legal public authority and financed under Art 290A of the Indian constitution, is it
permitted to practice such derogatory practice which is violative of under Articles 14,15(3),39(a) and 51A(e).

• Is Rule 3 of 1965 Rules allows religious denomination to restrict the passage of females between the age of 10 to 50?
What’s more, assuming this is the case, is it not against Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Indian constitution?

• Is rule 3(b) of the Rules of 1965 is ultra vires to the Act of 1965? In case we consider it as intra vires, will it be violative of
the basics of Part III of the constitution?

• Whether this restriction violates the provisions of Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Act, 1965?
Arguments from Petitioner
• It was contended that exclusionary practice brings in discrimination against females as a class since the restriction to female
aged between 10 to 50 years. In Bennett Coleman and Co. and Ors. v.Union of India and Ors[3].

• It is said that this segregation is just on the ground of sex on the grounds that the organic element of the feminine cycle
radiates from the attributes of a specific sex.

• It was contended that such practice which is exclusively based on gender is violative of Article15(1) and Article 15(2)(b). This
customary practice abuses article 14 in light of the fact that the characterization does not have a Constitutional object.

• It also violates the individual right to practice religion. The mensuration period of women is not permanent, hence banning
them permanently is violating the constitution.

• It is contended that Lord Ayyappa don’t have a religious denomination; the name or little difference of ceremonies does not
allow the devotees to be a separate religious denomination. Moreover, if devotees of Lord Ayyappa establish a religious
denomination, the ban on females is certifiably not a fundamental religious practice and it’s not necessary and it also
violates Article 21 and Article 17.
Arguments from Respondent
• It was contended that the expression is given in article 25(2)(b) shows that there should not be caste-based discrimination.

• It is contended that females underneath the age of 10-50 can freely go into any temple and exercise their entitlement to
worship but this situation is not discriminatory as it is to maintain the purely of this particular temple.i.e. Naishtik
Brahmachari. They are allowed to go to other temples of Lord Ayyappa. The customs were practised since immemorial
without any meddling and hence it is valid as per Art 13(3) (b). Moreover, the restriction is valid as it might cause
distraction in the men due to the presence of women.

• It was also argued that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do have a religious denomination since they follow Ayyappa Dharma,
every one of the devotees is called Ayyappans and all-female who are more than the age of 50 and who are allowed in the
temple are called Malikapurams.

• It was also considered that Lord Ayyappa is a religious denomination now which was held by the Kerala high court in S.
Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors.[5] It is also contended that the fundamental object of
Art 17 is to ban caste-based untouchability in the Hindu religion and no such practise is carried on in the temple.
Judgement
• The court held the case in favour of the petitioner in a 4:1 majority.

• Justice Chandrachud in his judgment expressed that restricting just females from the right to worship implies the subordination of females. He further
remarks that the exclusionary practice which depends on ‘biological factors’ that are non-religious in nature, recommending that females can’t keep the
‘vrutham’ are taking part in stereotypes encouraging discrimination in society. Moreover, only because of mensuration restricting someone is
unconstitutional and Art 17 also include women hence practising such will lead to a patriarchal push towards the society.

• Justice Mishra (on behalf of himself and Khanwilkar J.) proclaimed any rules which separates and sabotage females’ dignity will be struck down as it is
violative of Article 14 and 15. Moreover, devotees of Ayyappa didn’t pass the test for the religious denomination and hence it cannot be gain separate
religious identity. He interpreted that ‘classes and sections’ also include women and told that it needs state mandate reform. Futhermore, he struck down
rule 3(b) of the Kerela Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules of 1965 and said that practising prayers without women are not an essential religious practice.

• Justice Nariman delivered a concurring opinion saying he cannot grant the devotees separate denomination but can call them Hindus who worship idol
Ayyappa and declared denominational freedom under Art 25(2)(b). He said that denying female their right to worship is unconstitutional.

• Justice Malhotra gave a dissenting opinion saying religious practice must be in the internal part of the temple and it’s their internal affair, no matter if their
practice is rational and illogical. She mentioned that the temple is qualified as a religious denomination. Moreover, she said Art 14 does provide the right to
equality to women but it cannot overlap Art 25. She denies that the practice was violative of Art 17, the discrimination was simply to maintain the purity of
the temple. The discrimination mentioned in Art 17 does not include gender-based hence it was not violative.
Aftermath…..
• The landmark verdict of the Supreme Court of India in September 2018 overruled the Kerala High Court verdict and allowed women of all age
groups to enter the temple.

• The verdict was not unanimous; the Chief Justice and two other male justices favored the entry, whereas woman Justice Indu Malhotra
opposed (CNN ). Justice Indu Malhotra, in her dissent note, stated that "every individual should be allowed to practice their faith irrespective
of whether the practice is rational or logical" (Indian Express ).

• Even in a modern society like Kerala, a very aggressive opposition towards the social change was received from people, including a large mass
of women devotees, defending their religious beliefs.

• Following the Supreme Court verdict, women activists tried to enter the temple, but their attempts were repeatedly dampened by violent
attacks and aggressive opposition from devotees.

• Fifty-six petitions seeking review of the Supreme Court judgment were filed and the Supreme court referred the case to a 9-member
constitutional bench. Women activists and reformists claim that the Supreme Court's verdict on Sabarimala is a historical move in eradicating
gender discrimination.
References
• https://lawlex.org/case-summary/case-summary-indian-young-lawyers-association-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-ors/26497
• https://www.scobserver.in/cases/indian-young-lawyers-association-v-state-of-kerala-sabarimala-temple-entry-background
/
• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/justice-indu-malhotra-lone-dissenter-in-sabrimala-case-visits-temple-2321511-2023
-01-14
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oILeqocILk
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Ec_WPdb2M
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/indian-young-lawyers-association-ors-vs-state-kerala-ors-2018/
• https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/indian-young-lawyers-association-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-and-ors?searchuni
queid=905598
• https://feminisminindia.com/2022/08/08/i-only-did-what-any-self-respecting-woman-would-have-done-bindu-ammini-ab
out-entering-sabarimala/
Thank You!