Latest News
Back
Document:
Young Lawyers Association V. State of Kerala, 2018
In the Supreme Court of India, the Public Intrest litigation was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association in 2006.
The petition challenges the custom of Sabrimala Temple which excludes women from entering the temple. The lawyers argued on grounds that the custom violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion) of the Constitution of India. The Sabrimala Temple worships deity Lord Ayyappa, it is located in Periyar Tiger Reserve in the western ghat mountain ranges of Pathanamthitta District.
Temple prohibits the entry of women who are in their mensurating years (from age of 10- 50) stating the reason that it is a place of worship. The Travancore Dewasvom Board is legally authoritative to manage the administration of the temple the State said. Article 26 of the Indian Constitution which states Freedom to manage religious affairs gives the custom legal.
Apart from the Article custom was also protected from Rule 3(b) of Kerela Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. In 1991 before Kerala High Court the custom was challenged in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore case. In the judgment, the court stated that the custom is constitutional and justified as it is practiced for a long time.
It was first on 18th August 2006 when the Supreme Court issued notice to both parties. The matter was referred to bench consisting of 3 judges on 7th March 2008 which were heard on 11th January 2016, 7years later.
The court referred the case to a constitutional bench and on 13th October 2017, a bench comprising of 3 supreme court judges (Cheif Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi, and Justice Ashok Bhushan) ordered a constitutional bench comprising of Cheif Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and, Justice A M Khanwilkar.
On 28th September 2018, the bench delivered the judgment in a 4:1 majority stating the custom is unconstitutional and it violates the Fundamental Rights of women.Also, Rule 3(b) of Kerela Hindu Places of Hindu Worship Rules is held unconstitutional by the bench.
Justice Indu Malhotra has a dissenting opinion in the matter, according to her it should not be determined by courts which religious practice should be struck down until its an evil practice such as sati.
Hence, on 3rd February 2020, the Supreme Court ordered a bench comprising of 9 supreme court judges and the bench will be headed by Cheif Justice of India SA Bobde to frame legal issues on religious discrimination against women in different religious places.
Document:
