Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Young Indian Lawyers Association v Union of India
This case established a major precedent in ensuring positive interference from the Supreme Court when it comes to the delegitimization of archaic and discriminatory religious practices that hold society back from progressing. The religious practice dealt with in this case was that of the custom that prevented the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala shrine situated in Kerala. The Kerala High Court in 1991 upheld the constitutionality of the custom and failed to abolish the custom which prevented the entry of menstruating women. The Supreme Court on September 28, 2018 reversed the Kerala HC judgement and held that the custom was violative of the Constitution and consequently struck it down labelling it as discriminatory in nature. This custom was enshrined as Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules and was struck down in 2018 by a 5-judge bench with a majority of 4:1. The case came as a result of an instant writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution which guarantees constitutional remedies to any person whose fundamental rights have been violated.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
RATIONALE BY JUSTICE CHANDRACHUD
Hon'ble Justice DY Chandrachud presents a unique approach while holding that the exclusionary practice was in violation of the Constitution and that the practice was a form of untouchability under Article 17 of the Constitution. Justice Chandrachud introduces the concept of Constitutional morality and states that even if the practice is shown to be an essential religious practice, it is in violation of the ideals and morals that the Constitution was framed upon under the Preamble of the Constitution. He also holds that it is a form of untouchability and uses the debates of the Constituent assembly to assert his point. He observes that there was no consensus reached as to the definition of untouchability and that it was only based on social, political and economic inequality and on notions of purity. Justice Chandrachud also mentions that the practice imposes the burden of a man’s celibacy on a woman and paints her as the cause for deviation.
DISSENT BY JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
Hon'ble Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole dissenting judge who held that the exclusionary practice was not violative of the Constitution and that the shrine and its devotees satisfied the conditions and pre-requisites for a valid religious denomination under Article 26. Hon'ble Justice Malhotra stated that notions of rationality cannot be invoked in religious practices and that deciding otherwise would set a dangerous precedent for religious minorities since interlopers would begin questioning every practice and hence file frivolous cases. She also maintained that the SC is not in a position to ascertain whether a certain practice is essential to a religion or not and that it is up to the community themselves, while providing an exception to social evils like Sati for which Court intervention is necessary.
JUSTICE CHANDRACHUD ON DISSENT
Justice Chandrachud at a recent event in Mumbai expressed his respect towards the dissent given by Justice Indumalhotra stating that
"In the Sabrimala case, one of my colleagues, Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, which means there was a contrary viewpoint, and I do respect that. My law clerks said the same thing to me after the judgment. They asked me how a woman could dissent in a case about women’s rights. I told them that why should there be a perception that women should think in one particular way and men in another. We are professionals"
86540
103860
630
114
59824