Sabarimala – Open for All

Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala: All men and women have

equal right to worship

Jagini Rohit | BA LL.B 1st year | 16th November

 Abstract -

This essay mainly discusses about the modern day women rights and the way in which

they are interpreted and tackled by courts. It contains arguments from both the sides and my

opinions on them. It contains a gist and the history of the Sabarimala Shrine, about Ayyappa

Deity of Sabarimala,his roopam in Sabarimala. The way in which human rights, especially

women rights which are effected in the society these days. It also explains the supremacy and

power of women in Vedas. It contains the judgement of Kerala high court which is indifferent

from The Supreme court of India. It has the arguments of the petitioners who are Indian Young

Lawyers Association and Ors. And the citations passed by them in Kerala high court and

Supreme Court Of India. The judgement of Allahabad High Court which says about a juristic

person and the rights of a juristic person. The arguments of the petitioners who are not against

the ban imposed by temple authorities of Sabarimala and Constitutional provisions highlighted by

them during the arguments. The application of Article 14, 15, 25(1), 25(2)(b) of the Constitution

Of India specifically in this case. It discusses about India as a signatory to CEDAW (Convention

for Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women) and its implications. Justice Indu

Malhotra , who is only woman in the Constructional bench led by former CJI Deepak Mishra and

who is the only dissenting Judge in the bench and my conclusion on the prevalence of the

verdict.
Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala: All men and women have

equal right to worship

Gender Jurisprudence could bring the biggest reform in the society today these days. Traditions and

customs in which the women and held back in the society are being promoted and readjusted by Law.

The new theories related to gender equality attempt to bring women at par with men in social, political,

economic and cultural life. This interpretation is followed by the supreme court of India in recent

judgement. Recently The Supreme Court of India pronounced a judgement relating to the Entry of women

into the holy shrine of Sabarimala. The apex court ruled (4-1) that women of any age group can enter

the temple1. This was a controversial issue among one group of the people where the women who were

from 10-50 years of age group were not allowed into the holy shrine of Sabarimala according to the rules

of the temple. Few women were dissatisfied with this ruling and challenged this in the court of law . This

made the supreme court to intervene among people who are opposing the rules followed by the temple

administration and the administration itself and finally pronounced a verdict which are contrary to the rules

of the temple. Even after the verdict the issue is still persistent in the society as the other group of people

who were against the verdict started protesting against it. The chief priest of the shrine could not abide by

the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According the rules of this Hindu Temple the women between

the age group of 10-50 years were considered unpure and were not allowed into the temple.

The history of the temple goes back to the twelfth century. it is built on a hilltop amidst

eighteen hills at an altitude of around four hundred and eighty meters and is surrounded by

mountains and dense forests At Sabarimala, the deity is worshiped as Ayyappan and

as Dharmashasta 2. The shrine of Sabarimala is an ancient temple. It is believed that the prince of

Pandalam dynasty, an avatar of Ayyappan, meditated at Sabarimala temple and became one with the

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabarimala
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006 Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. V. The State of Kerala & Ors. (SC)
divine Sastha, temple at Sabarimala is one of the five Sastha temples founded by Lord Parasurama.

There five temples of Lord Ayyappa in Kerala itself where he will be worshipped in five different

forms in five different temples1. In this temple of Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa is worshipped in the form of

‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ . Which means lord Ayyappa was a Eternal Celibate and should undertake

extreme measures, in order to avoid the deviation of his mind towards reproduction and also to keep the

reproductive organs under control — he is required to completely stay away from women who are in the

age conducive to procreation.

There are many other rules which a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ has to follow. Manusmriti says that a

‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ has a long list of physical and mental requirements one of which is the extreme

sense control where he should keep his sensory organs such as eyes, ears, mouth, nose, skin, hands,

legs, excretory organs and Reproductory organs in his control including his mind 2. These grandhas form

the base of the rules which are implemented by the temple administration till recently in this particular

shrine of lord Ayyappa in Sabarimala.

In India The Constitution and the various Legislative measures assure women’s rights. It is the

Judiciary which interpreted them and provided them the justice. There are continuous protests by the

people of religion other than Hinduism also . Thus they approached the court where the justice was

delivered and restriction of the entry was to be removed by the temple authorities legally. This again was

not acceptable by the other group of people who wanted to abide by the rules of the temple administration

which resulted in a chaos outside the temple when it was opened occasionally. This is a major issue in

the society after the judgement is delivered.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabarimala
2. https://medium.com/@pranasutra/naishtika-brahmachari-and-the-need-for-extreme-sense-control-dd234f44f1f6
 The three-Judge Bench in Indian Young Lawyers Association and others v. State of Kerala 1

and others upheld the practice of banning entry of women belonging to the age group of 10 to 50 years in

the Sabarimala temple during any time of the year. This verdict bought a relief for the people who were

supporting the ban2. The reason which was mentioned in the verdict was the form of the Deity in

Sabarimala specifically , who is a Yogi or a Naishtika Brahmachari . The court also ruled that the

restriction imposed by the Board is not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Such

restriction is also not violative of the provisions of ‘Hindu Place of Public Worship (Authorisation of

Entry) Act, 1965’ 2 since there is no restriction between one section and another section or between

one class and another class among the Hindus in the matter of entry to a temple whereas the

prohibition is only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a class”. Thus the

Kerala high court ruled that the rules of the Temple board would prevail and the Head priest was

empowered to decide on traditions .

The petitioners i.e. Indian Young Lawyers Association and others have pressed into service

the decisions of this Court in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay 4, Raja Bira

Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa 5, Shastri Yagnapurushadiji and others v. Muldas Bhundardas

Vaishya6 and another and S.P. Mittal v. Union of India and others7 wherein the concept of religious

denomination was discussed by this Court. It is the stand of the petitioners that some mere difference in

practices carried out at Hindu Temples cannot accord to them the status of separate religious

denominations.

The Supreme Court said that deity of Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, Lord Ayyappa, is a perpetual

minor and has rights including the right to privacy with regard to certain rites observed at the

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf
2. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-reserves-verdict-on-pleas-against-ban-on-entry-of-women-at-sabarimala/story-eBpbiW3d1jMgLDuhb23K7H.html
3. Third Edition, Vol. 1, 1983 pg. 931
4. [1962] Suppl.2 SCR 496
5. (1964) 7 SCR 32
6. (1966) 3 SCR 242 : AIR 1966 SC 1119
7. (1983) 1 SCC 51
8. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-reserves-verdict-on-pleas-against-ban-on-entry-of-women-at-sabarimala/story-eBpbiW3d1jMgLDuhb23K7H.html
9. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006 Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. V. The State of Kerala & Ors. (SC)
Shrine1 .

The court also says that the right of privacy is the same as reflected in the judgment that

recognizes privacy as a fundamental right will have to be examined.This is said by former Chief Justice Of

India Deepak Mishra while hearing to the petition filed by lawyer Jaydeep Gupta.

In Abdul Qayum And Ors v. Emperor2 the Allahabad High court ruled that a Deity is a juristic

person and he can hold the property just as other juristic person. It is generally the idol representing the

Deity which is installed in a temple or at a suitable place of worship. The court also ruled that the person

who is in charge of the idol could be competent to take all steps in a court of law in the interest of the

Juristic Person .

A leading Supreme Court Advocate K.Parasaran argues in support of ban on women entry.

His opinion was that the court cannot reform a religious belief 3. His said that the superiority of

women in Vedas and Manu are projected in such a way that they are as superior or equally superior to

men. The status of the women could be easily by the image in which Parvati Devi is projected in the

Vedas. The image by which Godess Durga is projected could also determine how mighty, strong and

powerful women were shown in Vedic texts. It can also be inferred that the ban on women entry was

misogynistic according to the Vedic Scripts. The practice could not be due to hatred towards women in

fact the difference could be in a positive sense also as the deity has his own character. In some cases

these Vedic scripts could be more superior to the modern day science . So, these texts cannot be

neglected totally. The whole scenario could be seen in two distince ways and could be judged in two

extreme ways.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. https://www.livelaw.in/sabarimala-day-5-court-cannot-reform-a-religious-belief-out-of-its-identity-k-parasaran-argues-in-support-of-ban-on-women-entry/
2. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b492a2607dba348f0019aa (Abdul Qayum And Ors. vs Emperor on 12 June, 1945)
3. https://www.livelaw.in/tag/sabarimala/page/2/
 The opinion of people was that if the judgement would not restrict or allow women into the Temple

it could be misogynistic also. Few families in Kerala followed matrilineal practices where female would

head the family and the whole line would be of female gender . So, in their belief there is no suppression

of women’s rights related to the temple.

In this scenario the Article 15 of the Indian Constitution1 might not get attracted as the article

only talks about public places which doesn’t include the shrine. This article discusses about the

‘prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth’ but not place

of worship . Another aspect could be the morality and faith of the people could get affected as some

people might not consider the entry of women morally right and this could affect their right to practice and

propagate religion according to Article 25(1) of The Indian Constitution 2 .

Article 25 Of The Indian Constitution gives the right to profess, propagate and practice of

religion . This provision could be a hurdle to the Kerala government’s verdict when the Supreme court

takes the case.

Article 25(2)(b) specifically talk about bringing the reforms in the society for providing

social welfare and throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes

and sections of society, Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or

prevent the state from making any law3 . This provision clearly allows to bring a reform and nothing

shall obstruct this law to get enforced. In this case giving rights for women would be a major social reform

in the society at large.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Article 15 of The Indian Constitution.

2. Article 25(1) of The Indian Constitution
3. Article 25(2)(b) Of The Indian Constitution
1, 2, 3 The Constitutional Law Of India – Dr.J.N.Pandey , 45th Edition (Central Law Agency)
5. https://www.livelaw.in/tag/sabarimala/page/2/ - (theme)
 Kerala is economically and socially highly developed and it is a prosperous. It is also a highly

literate state , in fact the most literate state in the country as of 2016. Even in present day Keralite women

are as superior as men. Kerala attained One Hundred Percent literacy in Primary education as of

20162 . Thus women in Kerala are not socially, economically and educationally backward especially. They

have equal right as men according to Article 25 Of the Indian Constitution.

Even Article 15 Of the Indian Constitution Prohibits Discrimination3 on grounds of religion,

race, caste, sex or place of birth. Equality before law and equal protection of laws is also granted by

the Indian Constitution of Article 14 3. When these articles are compiled and interpreted women may

have the right to enter the temple as these are the Fundamental Rights and few of them cannot be even

amended. Thus, they have to be enforced under any circumstance even if there is another law which is

obstructing.

The Temple administration even did not give any justification regarding maintenance of celibacy

as a ritual who doesn’t want to practice it . On the contrary, according to the temple administration, since

women during menstrual period cannot trek very difficult mountainous terrain in the dense forest and that

too for several weeks, this practice of not permitting them has started.

The judgment of this Court in Sri Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore and others3 has

been cited to submit that a religious denomination cannot completely exclude

or prohibit any class or section for all times. All that a religious denomination may do is to restrict the entry

of a particular class or section in certain rituals.

Article 26(b) of the Indian Constitution could be enforced which says that the ‘Freedom to

manage religious affairs is a Fundamental Right4’ but simultaneously Art. 25(2)(b) prevails as against

article 26(b) as the denominational rights are such that they would substantially reduce the right

1. https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf
2. https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/kerala-primary-education-303364-2016-01-12
3. . Sri Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore , 11 (1958) SCR 895 : 1958 AIR 55 19
4. Article 26(b) of the Indian Constitution .
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006 Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. V. The State of Kerala & Ors. (SC)
conferred by Article 25(2)(b) , says SC.

Article 26(b) of the Indian Constitution could be enforced which says that the ‘Freedom to

manage religious affairs is a Fundamental Right1 ’ but simultaneously Art. 25(2)(b) prevails as against

article 26(b) as the denominational rights are such that they would substantially reduce the right

conferred by Article 25(2)(b) , says SC.

According to Supreme Court Section 4 of the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorization

of Entry) Act, 1965 and Rule 3(b) 2 made under the said section which disentitles certain categories of

people from entering any place of public worship and this includes women who, by custom or usage, are

not allowed to enter a place of public worship. It has further been submitted by the applicant of this case

that Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the 1965 Act and is also unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 15, 17, 21

and 25 of the Constitution.

Even if we assume that Sabarimala is a religious denomination, the exclusion of women is not an

essential practice as it does not satisfy the test of essential practice as has been laid down by this Court

in Commissioner of Police and others v Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and others3 .

India is a party to the CEDAW which is Convention on Elimination of all forms of

Discrimination Against Women1. As India is a party to this International Convention, it is the obligation

of the state to implement it and enforce the same. Min theme of this International convention is to enforce

women rights.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.Article 26(b) of the Indian Constitution .

2. Section 4 of the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 .
3. Commissioner of Police and others v Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and others , (2004) 12 SCC 770 .
4. CEDAW CONVENTION - http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/
 The judgment of this Court in Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others 2 has been

cited to submit that international conventions must be followed when there is a void in the domestic

law or when there is any inconsistency in the norms for construing the domestic law. So, according to this

this Convention women should be allowed into the temple as India is its signatory to CEDAW

Convention. The CEDAW Convention comes under the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality

and the Empowerment of Women 2.

In Hinduism even if women are superior to men according to Vedas, Upanishads and Smritis ,

today the constitution would prevail as it is superior among all.

Surprisingly Justice Indu Malhotra , is the only women judge in the Five-Judge Constitutional

bench of Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India Deepak Mishra who did not stand against the

restricted entry of woman i.e. she gave a dissenting judgement 3 .

The practice of age restriction on women entry to Sabrimala temple can't be treated as an

essential religious practice, said the court in a majority four-one judgment, ending a ban on the

entry of women between 10 and 50 years.

Justice Indu Malhotra, however, said that issues which have deep religious connotation should not

be tinkered with to maintain secular atmosphere in the country."It is not for court to interfere in

religious practices even if it appears discriminatory. Notions of rationality cannot be brought into

matters of religion,"1 she said. She was of the view that it is not for courts to determine which religious

practices are to be struck down except in issues of social evil like 'Sati'.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others

2. CEDAW CONVENTION - http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/
3. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sabarimala-verdict-justice-indu-malhotra-dissented-with-other-judges-heres-why-1923603
4. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sabarimala-verdict-justice-indu-malhotra-dissented-with-other-judges-heres-why-1923603
 Justice Indu Malhotra, however, said that issues which have deep religious connotation should not

be tinkered with to maintain secular atmosphere in the country.

"It is not for court to interfere in religious practices even if it appears discriminatory. Notions of

rationality cannot be brought into matters of religion," 1 she said. She was of the view that it is not for

courts to determine which religious practices are to be struck down except in issues of social evil like

'Sati'.

For centuries, i.e. before the supreme court verdict few women were restricted from entering the

temple as its presiding deity, Lord Ayyappa, is considered to be a celibate. A number of petitions had

challenged the restrictions on the entry of women which finally succeeded.

The head priest of Sabarimala, Kandaru Rajeevaru, said: "We are disappointed but accept the

Supreme Court verdict on women entry."

There will never be generation of great men until there is generation of Free Women. Whatever

the verdict maybe, even if not satisfied or disapprove each and every citizen of the country should abide

by it, follow the ruling of the Apex Court, should respect Constitution Of India which is supreme of all and

the Judiciary.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sabarimala-verdict-justice-indu-malhotra-dissented-with-other-judges-heres-why-1923603
2. Other compilation of the facts in the essay could be from (source) – www.thehindu.com/
3. Other compilation of the facts in the essay could be from (source) - www.indianexpress.com
4. https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf
4. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006 Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. V. The State of Kerala & Ors. (SC)
Bibliophile

Books
1.The Constitutional Law Of India – 45th Edition – Dr.J.N.Pandey

2.Fundamentals of Jurisprudence S.N.Gyani

Web Links
3. SC Sabarimala Verdict
https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-
2018.pdf

4. Manusmriti
https://medium.com/@pranasutra/naishtika-brahmachari-and-the-need-for-extreme-sense-control-
dd234f44f1f6

5. History of Sabarimala
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabarimala

6. Indian Express
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sabarimala-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-women-temples-
kerala-5377598/?#liveblogstart

7. Live Law
https://www.livelaw.in/tag/sabarimala/page/2/

8. Hindustan Times
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-reserves-verdict-on-pleas-against-ban-on-entry-of-
women-at-sabarimala/story-eBpbiW3d1jMgLDuhb23K7H.html

9.Other citations
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b492a2607dba348f0019aa

10. CEDAW International Convention

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

Writ Petition

11. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006 Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. V.
The State of Kerala & Ors. (SC)
Author Details

Jagini Rohit

1st Year BA LL.B (5YDC) , University College of Law, Osmania University

9885321145

rohitjagini1@gmail.com

University Details

University College of Law

040-2768 2368 (Osmania University)

Osmania University Road , Osmania University, Amberpet, Hyderabad,

Telangana,
500007.