⚖️ Landmark Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)
(Sabarimala Case)
📝 Summary:
The Sabarimala judgment upheld women’s right to worship by lifting the ban on entry of women aged 10–50 into the Sabarimala temple, reinforcing gender equality and constitutional supremacy over religious practices.
📚 Background
The Sabarimala temple in Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, had a centuries-old tradition of banning entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50, citing the deity’s status as a celibate.
The Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged this practice in the Supreme Court, arguing it violated fundamental rights under the Constitution, especially gender equality and freedom of religion.
The case sparked a nationwide debate: Should religious customs take precedence over constitutional guarantees?
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Verdict
In a 4:1 majority, the Court ruled in favor of allowing women of all ages to enter the temple.
Key rulings:
-
Practice violated fundamental rights
The ban was found to violate Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 25 (freedom of religion). -
No religious denomination can deny women entry
The temple’s customs were deemed patriarchal and not an essential part of religion. -
Constitutional morality > social morality
The Court said the Constitution must lead social change, even if traditions resist it.
“Patriarchy in religion cannot be permitted to trump over the faith and freedom of women.”
🧠 Significance
-
Asserted that women have equal right to worship in public temples.
-
Set a precedent for reforming discriminatory religious practices.
-
Sparked social dialogue on gender, faith, and reform.
🧩 Conclusion
The Sabarimala verdict reaffirmed that the Constitution, not custom, is supreme. While the decision faced both praise and protest, it remains a powerful symbol of India’s commitment to gender justice and secular values.