Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala)

The story

For generations, women between the ages of 10 and 50 were turned away from the hilltop shrine of Sabarimala, told that their presence would offend the celibate deity Ayyappa. When the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged this ban, the case became a battleground between individual rights and religious tradition. Petitioners argued that biology should never determine who may pray; the temple's custodians and many devotees insisted that the deity's unique vow of celibacy deserved protection as core to their faith. In September 2018, by a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court sided with the petitioners, declaring the exclusion unconstitutional and opening the temple's doors to women of all ages. But the ruling ignited fierce backlash—massive protests, political mobilization, and violent clashes greeted women who tried to enter afterward, some turned back by crowds despite police escort. Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone dissenter and only woman on the bench, warned that courts should tread carefully on matters of deep religious sentiment. The controversy did not end with the judgment; review petitions followed, and the Court eventually referred larger questions—about balancing religious freedom with equality—to a nine-judge bench, leaving the debate unresolved but the constitutional principle firmly stated.

The facts

The Sabarimala temple in Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, traditionally excluded women aged 10 to 50 (of menstruating age) from entering, based on the belief that the deity is a 'Naishtik Brahmachari' (eternal celibate). This exclusion was codified in Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. The Indian Young Lawyers Association and others filed a PIL challenging this exclusion as discriminatory and unconstitutional. The case questioned whether religious customs could override constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.

The question before the court

Whether the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the Sabarimala temple violates Articles 14, 15, 17 and 25(1) of the Constitution, and whether such exclusion constitutes an 'essential religious practice' entitled to protection under Article 26.

The holding

By a 4:1 majority (Misra CJ, Nariman, Khanwilkar and Chandrachud JJ; Malhotra J dissenting), the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of women aged 10-50 from Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that this practice was not an essential religious practice protected under Article 26, and that it violated women's rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), freedom from untouchability-like exclusion (Article 17), and freedom of religion (Article 25(1)). Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, insofar as it authorised such exclusion, was struck down. Justice Malhotra dissented, holding that issues of deep religious sentiment should not be tested on judicially manageable standards of rationality and that essential religious practices of a denomination deserved protection under Article 26.

The principle it stands for

Constitutional morality and fundamental rights of individuals, particularly equality and dignity, take precedence over religious customs and practices that discriminate on the basis of physiological characteristics like menstruation. The exclusion of women from religious worship on such grounds cannot be justified as an essential religious practice meriting protection under Article 26, and must yield to Articles 14, 15, 17 and 25.

Provisions this case shaped

• Art. 14Equality before lawinterpreted — Right to equality applied to strike down gender-based exclusion from temple entry
• Art. 15Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birthinterpreted — Non-discrimination on grounds of sex extended to bar exclusion based on menstrual status
• Art. 17Abolition of Untouchabilityinterpreted — Concept of untouchability read expansively to include exclusion based on physiological attributes
• Art. 25Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religionlimited — Individual freedom of religion held to override the temple's claimed religious practice of exclusion
• Art. 26Freedom to manage religious affairslimited — Denominational right to manage religious affairs held not to protect the exclusionary practice as essential