Sabarimala Case, Arguments Against & In Favour, SC Verdict

The Sabarimala Case is a significant legal and societal debate concerning the centuries-old tradition. Traditionally, women of reproductive age were not allowed to enter the Sabarimala Temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, citing reasons like preserving the deity's sanctity and temple customs. The temple witnessed a legal battle initiated by the Indian Young Lawyers Association's petition in 2006, challenging the ban on women’s entry as a violation of women's Right to Equality and Religious Freedom guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. 

In 2018, the Supreme Court in a 4:1 majority ruled that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala was unconstitutional. This verdict ignited protests and complexities in implementation, prompting a referral for review in 2019, which is still pending in the court.

Background to the Sabarimala Case

Sabarimala Temple is one of South India's most famous temples, located within the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghats of Kerala. The temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, who is said to be the son of Lord Shiva and Mohini, the female avatar of Lord Vishnu.

• About the Temple: The temple is known for its unique religious practices where devotees undertake a 41-day penance, renouncing worldly pleasures before visiting the temple. Devotees consider Lord Ayyappa to be a celibate deity. 
  • Women in their ‘menstruating years’ (between 10 to 50 years) were customarily prohibited from entering the temple to protect Ayyappa’s celibacy.
• First Case: The women's exclusion was first challenged in the Kerala High Court in 1991. In S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore, the High Court ruled that the exclusion was constitutional and justified because it was a long-standing custom. 
  • The practice was considered to not violate the rights of female devotees to equality (Article 14) and the Right to Freedom of Religion under Article 25.
• Recent Case: The Indian Young Lawyers Association petitioned the Supreme Court in 2006, challenging the Sabarimala Temple's prohibition on women entering the temple premises.
  • The State of Kerala submitted that the women should get entry into the temple, changing its earlier stance.
  • In 2008, the matter was referred to a 3-Judge Bench but it was heard in 2016. In 2017, it was referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. 
• Issues before the Supreme Court:
  • Does the prohibition on menstruating women’s entry violate the Right to Equality (Art 14) and the Right against discrimination and the abolition of untouchability (Art 17)?
  • Are Lord Ayyappa’s devotees a separate religious denomination, hence responsible for managing the administration of their affairs in matters of religion?
  • Is exclusion an ‘essential religious practice’ under Article 25?
  • Does Rule 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules permit a ‘religious denomination’ to ban such entry?
  • Do the Public Worship Rules citing the custom go against the parent law, which disallowed discriminatory practices?

Views on the Sabarimala Temple Case

The Sabarimala Temple case remains a complex and emotionally charged issue, with strong arguments on both sides of the debate regarding women's entry.

Arguments Against Women’s Entry 

• Traditional practice: The temple has its traditions and customs that should be followed. The Travancore Devaswom Board oversees the administration of the Sabarimala Temple. It argued that excluding women was a necessary practice in their religion.
  • It also argued that the ban did not apply to all women, but only to those aged 10 to 50. 
  • Given the deity's celibacy, this exclusion was understandable.
• Constitutional protection: The board emphasised that Sabarimala is a religious denomination protected by Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. 
  • The right of a religious denomination to manage its internal religious affairs is guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution.
• Legal protection: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 protected the Sabarimala custom. It listed the categories of people who are not allowed to worship in public places, including 'women at such times and age when they are not allowed to enter a place of public worship'.
  • The rule permitted the exclusion of women from public places of worship if the exclusion was based on 'custom'.
• Previous decisions: In Ritu Prasad Sharma v State of Assam 2015, the Guwahati High Court ruled that religious customs protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution are immune from challenge under other provisions of Part III of the Indian Constitution.
• Biological differences: Completing 41 days of penance is required before embarking on a pilgrimage to Sabarimala. It is a necessary religious practice. 
  • The 41-day penance period is physically very difficult for the menstruating women to complete.

Arguments in Favour of Women’s Entry

• Gender equality: Advocates for women's entry argue that denying access to the temple based on gender and age discriminates against women and violates their fundamental rights, especially the right to equality under Articles 14 and 15(3) on the grounds of sex. 
• Freedom of religion: All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion freely." The exclusion of female devotees is a violation of that right.
• Evolution of religious practices: Traditions should evolve with time and align with modern principles of gender equality. 
  • Preventing women from entering the temple denotes the patriarchal nature of society. 
  • Religious practices should not perpetuate discrimination and must adapt to societal changes.
• Legal provision: Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, states that regulations that 'discriminate in any manner whatsoever, against any Hindu on the ground that he belongs to a particular section or class' are prohibited.
• Breaking stereotypes: Allowing women access to Sabarimala is seen as a step towards breaking stereotypes and empowering women. 
  • It challenges the notion of impurity associated with menstruation and promotes inclusivity in religious spaces.
• A form of untouchability: Prohibiting the entry of women 10 to 50 years of age is a form of untouchability, as menstruating women are barred from entering the temple, thus violating Article 17 of the constitution.
• Sabarimala Temple is not a separate religious denomination: It was argued that Lord Ayyappa Temple is not a separate religious denomination for Article 26 because the religious practices performed in Sabarimala Temple during 'Puja and other religious ceremonies are not distinct and are similar to any other practice performed in any Hindu Temple.

SC Verdict on Sabarimala Case

On September 28th, 2018, a 5-judge Supreme Court bench issued its decision in the Sabarimala Temple Entry case. The temple's practice of excluding women was deemed unconstitutional by a 4:1 majority.

• Majority opinion:
  • The majority ruled that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala violated the fundamental rights of women aged 10 to 50.
  • They also argued that devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not form a separate religious denomination. The custom was not an essential religious practice. 
  • They stated that the practice was discriminatory under Article 15. According to Justice Chandrachud, the right against untouchability includes any type of social exclusion, based on 'purity' notions.
  • Furthermore, Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules, permitted the practice of prohibiting women as unconstitutional.
• Dissenting opinion:
  • In a dissenting opinion, Justice Indu Malhotra stated, "It is not for the courts to determine which of these religious practices are to be struck down, except if they are pernicious, oppressive, or a social evil, like Sati."
  • The concept of rationality cannot be applied to religious issues. Religious beliefs must be balanced against constitutional principles of non-discrimination and equality.

Current Situation

• Response to the Judgement: The 2018 verdict faced widespread protests and resistance from devotees who viewed it as encroaching on their religious beliefs and temple customs.
  • Implementation of the judgement was marred by difficulties, with the Kerala government struggling to ensure safe entry for women due to protests and even violence.
• Review: In 2019, the Supreme Court referred the case (Kantaru Rajeevaru v Indian Young Lawyers’ Association) back to a larger bench for review, which is still pending.
  • The bench stated that the 2018 judgement would remain in effect until the review petitions were resolved. 
  • The outcome may lay down a path for the Courts to reconcile the essential religious practice test with constitutional principles and decide on multiple cases such as: 
    • Female genital mutilation practice among the Dawoodi Bohra community.
    • Muslim women’s right to enter mosques, 
    • Right of Parsi women to enter the fire temple after marrying a non-Parsi, etc. 

The Sabarimala Case FAQs

Q1. What is the Sabarimala Case about?

Ans. The Sabarimala Case revolves around the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. It pertains to the tradition that barred women of reproductive age from entering the temple premises.

Q2. Where is Sabarimala Temple Located?

Ans. Sabarimala Temple is located in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala, India. The temple is situated on a hilltop in the village of Ranni-Perunad. The temple is surrounded by 18 hills in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, which is part of the Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Q3. Why were women historically barred from Sabarimala Temple?

Ans. Traditionally, women of reproductive age were not allowed into the Sabarimala Temple due to beliefs about preserving the deity's sanctity and temple customs, centred around Lord Ayyappa's celibacy.

Q4. What was the Supreme Court's verdict in the Sabarimala Case?

Ans. In a landmark 4:1 majority decision, the Supreme Court struck down the ban, calling it discriminatory and unconstitutional. They argued that religious practices cannot override fundamental rights and that the exclusion was not an essential element of Ayyappa worship.

Q5. Where is the current situation of the Sabarimala Case?

Ans. The Supreme Court referred the case back to a larger bench in 2019 for a comprehensive review. This review is still ongoing, and the 2018 verdict remains technically in effect until a final decision is reached.