Supreme Court Review on Religious Rights and Constitutional Morality in Sabarimala Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 2019-11-14, delivered a landmark ruling in the case of Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association. This case, popularly known as the Sabarimala review petition, revisited the constitutional validity of religious practices restricting women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The case generated intense debate over the balance between religious freedom and gender equality, raising crucial questions about the scope of judicial review in religious matters.

Background of the Case

The legal battle over the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple began with the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2018), which struck down the restriction on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the temple as unconstitutional. The ruling sparked widespread protests, leading to multiple review petitions challenging the judgment.

The petitioner, Kantaru Rajeevaru, argued that the 2018 judgment failed to consider essential religious practices under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution. They contended that the issue required further deliberation, as similar disputes existed concerning the entry of women into other religious places, such as mosques and Parsi fire temples.

Key Issues Raised in the Case

• Does the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala temple constitute an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution?
• Should constitutional morality override religious customs and practices?
• Did the 2018 judgment fail to adequately consider the rights of religious denominations to manage their affairs?
• Should the Court extend its examination to similar religious restrictions in other faiths?

Arguments by the Petitioners

• The restriction on women’s entry into Sabarimala is an integral and essential religious practice that has been followed for centuries.
• The 2018 judgment erroneously applied constitutional morality to interfere with religious practices that fall within the domain of faith and belief.
• The Sabarimala temple is a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution, giving it the autonomy to manage its religious affairs.
• Allowing women of menstruating age to enter the temple would violate the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa, who is worshipped as a Naishtika Brahmachari.
• The Court should also examine similar religious restrictions in other communities, such as Muslim women’s entry into mosques and Parsi women’s entry into fire temples.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The exclusion of women from the temple violates fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality) and Article 15 (non-discrimination) of the Constitution.
• Religious customs cannot override constitutional morality, and the Supreme Court must ensure that faith-based practices do not infringe upon individual rights.
• The ban on women was a social custom, not a religious requirement, making it subject to judicial review.
• The Constitution grants all individuals the right to worship at places of their choice, and restrictions on women’s entry were discriminatory.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The issue of religious freedoms versus constitutional rights is not limited to Sabarimala but extends to other faiths.
• The case raises fundamental questions about the extent to which courts can intervene in religious customs and whether such intervention aligns with constitutional principles.
• Given the complexity of the issues involved, a larger bench must be constituted to examine the matter comprehensively.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger seven-judge bench, stating that the case involved substantial questions of law affecting multiple religious communities. The review petitions were kept pending until the larger bench delivered a final verdict.

Impact of the Judgment

• It expands the scope of judicial review on religious practices in India.
• It sets a precedent for future cases involving religious freedom and gender rights.
• It ensures that similar disputes in other religious communities will be examined holistically.
• It highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing religious autonomy with constitutional principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association is a critical step in addressing religious freedom and gender equality under the Constitution. By referring the case to a larger bench, the Court has acknowledged the complexities involved and the need for a broader interpretation of religious rights in India.

Petitioner Name: Kantaru Rajeevaru.
Respondent Name: Indian Young Lawyers Association.
Judgment By: Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Sabarimala, Kerala.
Judgment Date: 14-11-2019.

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 14-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by Ranjan Gogoi
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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