All about Sabrimala Temple
Group 10:
B.TECH CSE – IT
SECTION: R2
MEMBERS OF THE GROUP:
RA2211031010072
ADITYA DUBEY
RA2211031010071
MOHAMMAD AMAN
RA2211031010073
BHAVYA CHHABRA
RA2211031010074
SAMEER SHARMA
RA2211031010075
POSHAK ARORA
RA2211031010076
YADU KRISHNA S
RA2211031010077
KRISHNA GOPAL A
FACULTY NAME:
21LEM101T
BHUVANA UDAYAKUMAR
Table of Contents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Introduction
Truth of the Matter
Issues
Arguments of Petitioners
Respondents’ Defences
Conclusion of the court
Conclusion
8.
References
Introduction:
The Sabarimala Temple is located in the Keralan district of
Pathanamthitta at Sabarimala. It is a Hindu shrine to Lord Ayyappa
and his devotees, the Ayyappan. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu
Religious Institution Act, 1950 established the Travancore Devaswom
Board as a statutory authority responsible for managing and overseeing
this temple. Women devotees who were 10 to 50 years old in the past
were not allowed to exercise their right to worship in this temple.
Because Lord Ayyappa is a NaishtikBrahmachari, this prohibition on
women is justified on the grounds that it is vital to preserve the deity
Ayyappa's character. So, according to a notification from the
Travancore Devaswom Board, women between the ages of 10 and 50
are not allowed to enter the temple. However, some advocates for
gender equality believe that this exclusionary practise, which is based
on a biological characteristic that is unique to women, constitutes
discrimination and breaches a number of fundamental rights protected
by the Indian Constitution.
The battle between tradition and women's rights is at the heart of
Sabarimala Temple Row. According to conventions and traditions,
women between the ages of 10 and 50 were not permitted to join the
Sabarimala Temple, however this prohibition is against constitutional
morals. Individual or societal morality and constitutional morality are
two distinct concepts. If there is a disagreement between constitutional
morality and social morality in a democratic nation like India, farmer
should take precedence over later.
Truth of the Matter:
A petition asking for a ban on women entering the Sabarimala shrine
was submitted to the Kerala High Court in 1990. The Kerala High
Court had upheld the ban on women under a particular age entering
Lord Ayyappa's sacred shrine. The registered association of Indian
Young Lawyers filed a case before the Supreme Court in 2006 asking
for the admittance of women between the ages of 10 and 50 in
accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
After two years, the case was referred to a three-judge panel in 2008.
The Supreme Court of India questioned such restrictions in January
2016 and ruled that they were against constitutional morality. The
Kerala government responded in April 2016 by stating that it had a
duty to defend Sabarimala worshippers' ability to exercise their
religion. The matter was referred to the Constitutional bench by the
Supreme Court of India in 2017.
In writ petition it was argued that Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu places of
public worship (authorisation of entry) rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred
as 1965 rules) framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 4
of the Kerala Hindu places of public worship (authorisation of entry)
act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as 1965 Act) is unconstitutional because
it violates Articles 14,15,25 and 51A(e) of Indian Constitution.
Issues:
1. Is the exclusionary practise, which is based on the biological
element unique to women, discriminatory and in violation of
Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Indian Constitution? Is it also not
covered by morality as defined in Articles 25 and 26?
2. Does this exclusionary practise fall within Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution's definition of an important religious practise?
3. Does Article 26 of the Indian Constitution recognise the Ayappa
Temple as a religious institution? If so, whether such
denomination, which is governed and funded by a statutory
authority and violates the moral standards and principles
stipulated by Articles 14, 15, 39(a), and 51A of the Indian
Constitution, is permitted to engage in such degrading conduct
(e).
4. Is it legal under Rule 3 of the 1965 Regulations for a religious
sect to forbid women between the ages of 10 and 50 from
entering? If that were the case, wouldn't that violate Articles 14
and 15(3) of the Indian Constitution?
5. Does Rule 3(b) of the Regulations of 1965 violate the Act of 1965?
Does it violate the provisions of Part III of the Constitution if it is
deemed to be intra vires?
Argument of Petitioner:
• The petitioner claimed that as women are excluded from entry
between the ages of 10 and 50, this exclusionary practise resulted
in discrimination against women as a class. Additionally, the
petitioner relied on the effect test set forth in Bennett Coleman
and Co. v. Union of India &Ors .It claimed that this prejudice is
solely based on sex because menstruation is a biological trait that
arises from the traits of a certain sex.
• It was further stated that because the Sabarimala Temple is a
public venue and such behaviour is exclusively based on sex, it
violates both Article 15(1) and Article 15(2). (b).
• It was stated that the notification given by the statutory authority
and the exclusionary or customary practise that is codified in Rule
3(b) of the Rules of 1965 do not adhere to the requirements of
Articles 14, 15, and 21. Due to the lack of a constitutional goal,
this customary practise is against article 14.
• It was further asserted that such customary behaviour infringes
on people's freedom to pursue their chosen faith. The petitioner
argued that the Act of 1965 was passed as a social reform measure
to meet the objectives set forth in Art. 25(2)(b), and that it does
not contain any provisions that forbid women of a certain age
from entering public temples. But, regulation 3(b) of the 1965
Rules violates the 1965 Act in that it forbids access into the public
temple on the basis of sex.
• Rule 3(b) of the 1965 rules states that women are not permitted to
visit a place of worship during certain hours due to tradition and
usage. This was the rationale behind the practise of banning
women between the ages of 10 and 50. The petitioner also said
that any other reading of that phrase would render the rule
unconstitutional since it might be in contradiction with the Act of
1965 and other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution.
• According to the petitioner, Lord Ayyappa's devotees do not
qualify as a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Indian
Constitution because they do not have a common religion or go
by a common name. They are not a different religious
denomination even if their rituals and ceremonies differ only little
from one another.
 Even if devotees or followers of Lord Ayyappa were to join a
religious denomination, the petitioner maintained, their rights
under Art. 26(b) should be subject to Art. 25(2). (b).
 The prohibition on women is not an important religious practise,
even if followers of Lord Ayyappa make up a religious group. Any
custom or use that is protected by Art. 26 must be legitimate
according to the Constitution and cannot be regarded as the
fundamental tenet of any presumptive religious denomination.
The petitioner further stated that this conduct violated article 21
of the constitution since it stigmatised women by polluting them.
Additionally, the petitioner argued that by forbidding women
from entering public spaces, which is a clear manifestation of
untouchability, the customary practise also violates Art. 17, which
can be used against both states and non-state actors.
 The petitioner further said that the temple is overseen and run by
a statutory body, and that it receives financial support from the
Consolidated Fund of India. It consequently falls under the
category of other authorities and is obligated to uphold basic
rights.
 The petitioner contended that because the constitution
guarantees equal access to the freedoms of worship and religion
for both men and women, the right of women to enter temples as
worshippers is protected as a basic right. According to Article
25(2), the state could not reduce this right in order to provide
social change or benefit (b).
Respondents' Defences:
 The respondent argued that article 25(2)(buse )'s of the phrase
throwing open to all classes and sections of Hindus proves there
should be no caste-based discrimination. It is not possible to
interpret such term in a way that ignores the customs that are a
crucial component of religion. Additionally, article 25(2)(b) is of
no consequence in this situation because there is simply a
temporary restriction based on tradition, faith, and belief that has
been observed from the dawn of time.
 Respondent further contended that girls below the age of 10 year
and ladies after 50 years can easily come into temple and enjoy
their right to worship therefore the partial restriction does not
amount to social discrimination. Also, there are no restrictions on
women entering other Ayyappa temples, making categorisation
appropriate in relation to the goal of maintaining the Lord
Ayyappa's identity and manifestation as a NaishtikBrahmachari.
The respondent was satisfied with the fact that this procedure has
been followed without interruption for all of recorded history,
making it a pre-constitutional usage and custom. Moreover, law
includes custom or usage, as stated in article 13(3)(b).
 The respondent also argued that because Article 26 exclusively
applies to public order, morality, and health and not to other Part
III laws, it is exempt from Articles 14 and 15. Only when the
deity's status as a NaishtikBrahmachari is upheld can Lord
Ayyappa's followers' rights to practise, profess, and spread their
faith be safeguarded. The respondent further argued that
prohibiting women from entering was a fundamental aspect of
this temple's practises. It is regulated to prevent pilgrims from
being distracted by anything sex-related.
 The respondent also claims that access restrictions do not amount
to derogation because their sole purpose is to safeguard the divine
and terrified appearance of a deity.
 In this matter, the respondent argued, there are both legal and
factual concerns that need to be resolved by a competent civil
court following review of all available evidence, including
documents.
 In response, it is asserted that followers of Lord Ayyappa are a
religious sect since they adhere to the Ayyappa Dharma; all
followers are referred to as Ayyappans, and all female eligible
followers are referred to as Malikapurams.
 The Kerala High Court noted in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary,
Travancore Devaswom Board &Ors. that Lord Ayyappa's
followers belong to a certain religious group. Following the
capture of both written and oral testimony, the High Court
reached its decision. This ruling, which determines the temple's
standing as a religious organisation, is one that was rendered in
rem; no party objected to this decision. In this way, it binds the
petitioner as well as all other parties.
 According to the respondent, the primary goal of Article 17 is to
outlaw Hinduism's practise of untouchability based on caste.
There is no such untouchability based on caste or religion in the
temple.
Conclusion of the court:
• According to the court, everyone in India has the freedom to
practise their faith, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
This discriminatory customary practise infringes on women's
right to visit a public temple, openly practise Hinduism, and
demonstrate her love to Lord Ayyappa.
• The court also noted that numerous evidence provided in court
demonstrates that followers of Lord Ayyappa do not qualify as a
distinct religious group under Article 26. A new technique must
be offered for a religion in order for there to be a separate
religious denomination.
• However the numerous practises of devotees reveal that it is
popular in Hindu faith. The mere observation of some rituals
since the beginning of time does not constitute a separate religion.
• The court stated that it would not accept the exclusionary
practise as a necessary component of religion in the absence of
scriptural or textual proof. The core principles of Hinduism will
not be altered or changed by admitting women into the
Sabarimala temple.
• The court determines that the term "morality" as used in Article
25 refers to constitutional morality rather than societal or
personal morality. The word morality logically implies
constitutional morality when a basic right is violated.
• The court determined that a simple reading of rule 3(b) of the
1965 rules demonstrates that it is in violation of sections 3 and 4
of the 1965 Act.
• Since this restriction is offered for the benefit of all Christian
faiths, Rule 3(b) does not violate Section 3 of the Act of 1965. She
pointed out that the fundamental right protected by Art. 26 does
not supersede the equality doctrine enshrined in Art. 14. The
religious community will choose what constitutes an essential
religious practise.
• Lord Ayyappa devotees form a distinct religious denomination
since they adhere to the Ayyappa Dharma and have a distinct set
of beliefs, usages, and codes of conduct that they have followed for
all of recorded history.
Conclusion:
The societal morality, personal morality, and constitutional morality
are clearly separate from one another. In a situation when a basic right
has been violated, we must concentrate on constitutional morality.
Whether a certain practise is a necessary component of a religion or
not. Only through the use of documentary evidence is it possible to
determine. However, as Indu Malhotra J. correctly noted, this case
comprises a mix of factual and legal issues, and the factual issues cannot
be resolved in a hearing on a writ petition.
A civil court with civil jurisdiction must be competent to resolve factual
disputes. Regarding the issue of whether or not followers of Lord
Ayyappa are considered a religious denomination under article 26 there
is also a lack of supporting documentation. Because there are several
gaps in this ruling, so review petition was filed later and 5 judge bench
(3:2) referred this subject to 7 judge bench.
References:
•
•
•
www.google.com
www.wikipedia.com
www.indianexpress.com