Sabarimala Temple Entry: Supreme Court’s Review on Religious Freedom and Gender Equality

The case of Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. revolves around the contentious issue of allowing women of menstruating age (10 to 50 years) entry into the Sabarimala Temple. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that restricting women’s entry into the temple violated their fundamental rights. However, the decision was met with nationwide protests, leading to several review petitions challenging the ruling. The present judgment concerns the Supreme Court’s decision on whether the earlier verdict needed reconsideration and whether broader constitutional questions on religious freedom warranted referral to a larger bench.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a writ petition in 2006 challenging Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. This rule barred women aged 10 to 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Temple, based on the belief that the deity, Lord Ayyappa, is celibate. The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the restriction in 2018, declaring it unconstitutional.

The ruling triggered multiple review petitions, including those from devotees and religious groups, arguing that the verdict interfered with religious customs protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The review petitions were clubbed with fresh writ petitions concerning similar religious disputes, including the entry of Muslim women into mosques and the rights of Parsi women to enter fire temples.

Legal Issues Involved

• Whether the Supreme Court could refer larger constitutional questions to a seven-judge bench in a review petition.
• Whether restricting women from entering the Sabarimala Temple violates Article 25 (freedom of religion).
• Whether the Ayyappa devotees form a religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26.
• Whether courts should determine what constitutes ‘essential religious practices.’
• Whether gender-based restrictions in religious places violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, including the Kerala government and activists, argued:

• Exclusion of women from the Sabarimala Temple violates gender equality and freedom of religion under Article 25.
• The temple is a public religious institution, and access cannot be denied based on gender.
• Article 26, which protects religious denominations, does not apply as Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate religious sect.
• Judicial intervention is justified when religious practices violate fundamental rights.

Respondents’ Arguments

Those opposing the 2018 verdict, including temple authorities and religious groups, contended:

• The restriction on women was an essential religious practice and thus protected under Articles 25 and 26.
• Religious customs should be determined by religious authorities, not courts.
• The 2018 judgment failed to recognize the unique traditions of Sabarimala.
• Judicial interference in religious practices sets a dangerous precedent.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority, referred the matter to a larger bench to examine broader constitutional issues. The majority held:

• Freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 must be reconciled with other fundamental rights, including equality under Article 14.
• The concept of ‘morality’ under Article 25 needs clarification—whether it refers to constitutional morality or religious morality.
• The court should determine if essential religious practices should be adjudicated by courts or left to religious institutions.
• Similar issues, such as the entry of Muslim women into mosques and Parsi women’s rights, must be addressed collectively.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court did not overturn the 2018 verdict but kept the review petitions pending until a larger bench decided the referred constitutional questions. The key aspects of the judgment included:

• A seven-judge bench would hear issues on religious freedom and judicial intervention.
• The stay on implementing the 2018 judgment was not explicitly granted, but practical difficulties in enforcement remained.
• Future cases concerning religious entry restrictions across communities would be guided by this larger bench ruling.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching consequences for religious rights in India:

• It establishes that religious practices must align with constitutional principles.
• It broadens the scope of judicial review in religious matters.
• It signals potential changes in laws governing entry to religious places.

While the Sabarimala issue remains unresolved, the larger bench’s decision will shape religious freedoms and gender rights in India.

Petitioner Name: Kantaru Rajeevaru.
Respondent Name: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice S. A. Bobde, Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 10-02-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-02-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category