Hindi
Home
Syllabus
About Us
Contact Us
A nine-judge Constitution Bench is reviewing the 2018 judgment that allowed women of menstruating age to enter the Sabarimala temple and is considering whether courts or legislatures should decide matters of religious practice.
What is the original 2018 Judgment?
On September 28, 2018, in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala Case, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled by 4:1 majority that lifted the centuries-old ban restricting women aged 10-50 from entering the Ayyappa temple in Kerala. The court relied on the following points:
- The restriction was linked to the belief that the presiding deity, Lord Ayyappa, is a celibate (Naishtika Brahmachari).
- The Supreme Court held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate “religious denomination” (distinct section) under Article 26, meaning the ban could not be justified as an essential religious practice (ERP).
- The exclusion was treated as a sex‑based discrimination that could not be sustained merely as a religious custom under Article 14 and 15.
The most striking fact about the judgment is the only woman judge of the bench Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole dissenting judge. Here are the main points of dissent:
| Majority (4 judges) | Dissent (Justice Malhotra) |
|---|---|
| Exclusion violates Articles 14, 15, and 25 (equality, non-discrimination, freedom of religion). | Exclusion is part of a protected denominational practice under Article 26. |
| Applied essential religious practices test and found the ban non-essential. | Argued courts should not decide essentiality unless practice is oppressive. |
| Petitioners had standing as the issue involved constitutional rights. | Only devotees had standing; outsiders cannot challenge. |
| Emphasized constitutional morality and dignity of women. | Emphasized religious autonomy and non-interference. |
How Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine Evolved?
- The test was articulated in Shirur Mutt v. State of Mysore (1954), where the Court held that only practices essential to a religion are protected.
- The doctrine asks whether a practice is an essential or integral part of a religion; if it is, the practice receives constitutional protection under Article 25 (freedom of religion).
- The dispute arose under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, which empowered state authorities to supervise and regulate administration of Hindu religious institutions.
- The judgment made a balance between Article 25 and 26 by recognizing a limited right for religious denominations to manage their affairs but affirmed that the State may intervene in matters that are not essential religious practices, especially for public order, morality, or health.
- It acts as a filter, allowing courts to distinguish between core religious tenets and secular or non-essential rituals, enabling the state to regulate, reform, or ban practices that are merely traditional, superstitious, or violates fundamental rights
What are the Key Issues Involved?
Arguments in Favour of the Judgement
- The ban was seen as discriminatory against women based on biological factors, violating the principle of equality (Article 14).
- Women were denied their fundamental right to freely practice religion (Article 25).
- The restriction was based on the regressive notions of purity and impurity linked to menstruation.
- The exclusion of women was not an “essential practice” of the Hinduism and hence could be reformed.
- The constitutional values (equality, dignity) must prevail over traditional or religious beliefs.
Arguments Against of the Judgement
- The Ayyappa devotees have the right to manage their own religious affairs without state interference (Article 26).
- Lord Ayyappa is considered a Naishtika Brahmachari, and the restriction was linked to preserving this character.
- Discrimination based on Menstruation and untouchability cannot be considered same.
- The judiciary should not interfere in religious matters that are centuries old unless they are clearly oppressive or harmful.
- Religious traditions are based on faith, which are inherently non-rational and therefore, should not be viewed in constitutional or scientific values.
Further Current Basic Concepts
