LANDMARK RULINGS
The 1991 Kerala High Court Judgment
The 1991 Kerala High Court Judgment in the Sabarimala case remains one of the most significant legal decisions in India’s history regarding the intersection of religion, gender, and constitutional rights. This judgment dealt with the issue of whether the prohibition on women of menstruating age (aged 10 to 50) entering the Sabarimala temple violated the constitutional guarantee of equality, particularly the right to equality and religious freedom. The case became a symbol of the conflict between traditional religious practices and modern constitutional ideals, raising questions about how the law should balance the right to religious freedom with the constitutional mandate to ensure gender equality.
Sabarimala is a famous temple located in the Western Ghats of Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The temple is one of the most visited pilgrimage sites in the world, attracting millions of devotees annually. The issue of restricting women of menstruating age from entering the temple came into the public eye when a group of women, led by Indian women’s rights activists, challenged the temple’s prohibition in the Kerala High Court. According to the traditional belief associated with Lord Ayyappa, who is considered to be a celibate god, women in the menstruating age group were deemed impure and were thus not allowed to participate in the pilgrimage.
The Kerala High Court’s decision in 1991 upheld this practice, stating that the restriction was a religious matter and should not be interfered with by the courts. This judgment was based on the interpretation that religious customs were integral to the identity and functioning of the temple, and that allowing women of menstruating age to enter would cause a disruption to the temple’s religious practices.
The Judgment and Legal Reasoning
The 1991 judgment was delivered by the Kerala High Court in response to petitions filed by women activists challenging the temple’s practice. The Court’s reasoning centered on the belief that the ban on women entering the temple was rooted in religious custom and that the principle of religious freedom under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution protected such practices. The Court held that religious practices that were integral to the faith of a community should not be interfered with unless they were harmful to public order or public morality.
The Kerala High Court placed significant emphasis on the role of tradition in religious practices, stating that the temple’s ban on women was inextricably linked to the beliefs and rituals of the devotees who practiced it. The judgment viewed the matter as one of religious freedom and autonomy, recognizing that the temple had the right to regulate its own practices. The Court also noted that the Sabarimala temple had its own unique customs, and these customs, according to the Court, could not be subjected to the scrutiny of secular law.
In its reasoning, the Kerala High Court acknowledged the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 17. However, the Court took the position that these rights were not absolute and could be restricted in the case of religious practices. The Court further observed that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala did not violate the right to equality because the restriction was based on a religious belief that was universally accepted by the devotees of Lord Ayyappa. As such, the Court considered the religious aspect of the case to be paramount, and the matter of gender discrimination in this context was not seen as a violation of constitutional principles.