INTRODUCTION
In Indian society, various ill practices have been prevalent, be it practice of Sati, polygamy or triple talaq. These practices have always put women in an inferior position to men hence showing the patriarchal nature of society. The Indian women have bravely fought against these evils. The case of ‘Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2018)’ highlights one of such practices and shows how women have fought against it. This article shall deal with the analysis of the case, its facts, issues, judgement and how the legal landscape has evolved since then.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE
There is a temple in the ‘State of Kerala’, devoted to the Lord Ayyappa named ‘Sabarimala Shrine’. The women of age 10-50 (menstruating women) were not allowed to enter the temple because of a belief that it would affect the purity of the temple. According to a belief, a devotee has to undergo penance for 41 days to get darshan of Lord Ayyappa. As women have to go through a menstrual cycle during these 41 days, their purity is said to be disturbed, hence prohibiting their entry into the temple. In 2006, ‘The Young Lawyers Association’ filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court alleging that the restriction violates ‘Articles 14, 15 and 17’ and asked if it is reasonable to do the same under the guise of morality under ‘Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution’. The case was earlier filed in Kerala High Court and it had concluded that the restriction is not violative of ‘Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution’.

ISSUES RAISED
Whether the restriction violates ‘Articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution’?
Whether the restriction is an essential religious practice?
Whether the term morality justifies the restriction under ‘Article 25 of the Constitution’?
Whether a religious institution is empowered to impose such restrictions in the light of the right of management under ‘Article 26 of the Constitution.’

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Article 14: ‘This article talks about equality before law. It says that the state shall not deny equality before law and equal protection of the laws to any person within the territory of India.’
Article 15: ‘It prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth. It is right given to only citizens of India.’
Article 17: ‘It talks about abolition of untouchability. It says untouchability in any form is forbidden and an offence punishable under law.’
Article 25: ‘It says that all the persons (citizens and non-citizens) are entitled to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion. This freedom is subject to restrictions of public order, morality and health.’
Article 26: ‘It gives religious denominations a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes and to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion.’

ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONERS
The petitioners argued that the denial of entry to the women in the temple is violative of the ‘Article 14, 15 and 17 of the Indian Constitution.’ The denial lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus, hence is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, the exclusion is based on sex and hence violates Article 15 of the Constitution. Article 17 abolishes untouchability in any form and thus discrimination on the basis of menstrual cycle is violative of Article 17 of the Constitution. The petitioner also argued that this is not an essential religious practice and said that the Sabarimala Shrine is not a religious denomination and hence can’t claim defence under ‘Article 26’ of the Constitution.

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:
The respondent argued that denial of entry in temple is not discrimination against women and hence is not violative of ‘Articles 14, 15 or 17 of the Constitution’. Further, it was argued that it is an essential religious practice and the ban is not arbitrary but based on reasonable nexus to maintain purity of the temple. They argued that it is a religious denomination as worshippers of Lord Ayyappa follow certain practices that are not followed by Hindus.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
The bench was composed of 5 judges namely ‘The Chief Justice Deepak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra’. The bench by a majority of 4:1 allowed the entry of women in the temple. The restriction was held to be violative of ‘Articles 14, 15, 17, and 25 of the Constitution’. However, Justice Indu Malhotra dissented and said that what constitutes an essential religious practice can’t be decided on the basis of the rational mind of the court and it depends on the faith of people following that religion.

CURRENT STATUS OF THE CASE
The review petition was filed in the Supreme Court. The court upheld the petition and a nine judge bench led by former ‘Chief Justice S.A. Bobde’ was constituted in 2019 to decide upon the matter. After the retirement of the Justice, this is currently led by ‘Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’ and the review petition is still pending.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The judgement is a step forward towards the protection of fundamental rights of women. It strengthens the notions of gender justice and equality while also expanding the scope of Article 17 (Untouchability). The critics of the judgement argue that it is judicial overreach into religious affairs. While there have always been different points of views of people on different matters, this judgement reflects the modern approach of the judiciary and its willingness to inculcate contemporary issues. The review petition is still pending, hence leaving certain uncertainty on the issue. Until the judgement of the nine- judge bench comes, we can just hope for a positive judgement. The judgement does raise debates on judicial interference in religious matters, but it is a positive step towards the strengthening of fundamental rights of women. It has reshaped the definitions of equality and gender rights. It is an epitome of how judicial interference is sometimes necessary in religious matters to ensure equality and protection of fundamental rights.

- Advertisement -

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I