Brief Summary on Sabarimala from 1990-2019
Earlier Case 1990: S. Mahendran v The Secretary, Travancore
The petition was filed in the Kerala High Court in 1990 by S. Mahendran seeking a ban on entry of the women in the temple because the deity present at the temple was a ‘brahmachari’ (celibate). The judgment came in the favour of the petitioner. It imposed a ban on the entry of the women between the age of 10 to 50 years in the temple, stating that such a restriction was in accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial. The court held that the ban was not in violation of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. It said that such restriction was not in violation of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 also. As there is no restriction between one section and another section or between one class and another class among the Hindus in the matter of entry to a temple whereas the prohibition is only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a class.
Sabarimala case 2018: Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v State of Kerala
On 28th September, 2018, the Supreme Court gave its path breaking judgment on the issue of restriction of the entry of women going through menstruation between the age of 10 to 50 years in the temple. The Court held that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years practiced by the Sabarimala Temple denied women of their freedom of worship, guaranteed under Article 25(1). It was held that the worshippers of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination. They were termed as Hindus who worship the idol of Lord Ayyappa. Thus, it was held that the Sabarimala Temple’s denominational freedom under Article 26 is subject to the State’s social reform mandate under Article 25(2)(b). It was further emphasised that physiological characteristics of women, like menstruation, have no significance or bearing on the entitlements guaranteed to them under the Constitution. It was also observed that the exclusion of women was a form of untouchability prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.
Sabarimala Review Petition
In Kantaru Rajeevaru v Indian Young Lawyers’ Association Thr. Its General Secretary and Others, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court referred the overarching constitutional issues to a larger bench on 14th November, 2019, while keeping the review petitions pending with a narrow majority of 3:2. However, the court did not issue a stay on the 2018 judgment. The constitution bench was led by now retired Chief Justice of India (“CJI”) Ranjan Gogoi. Multiple review petitions were filed against the 2018 judgment on several grounds including that there were apparent errors in it.
The majority judgment was written by CJI Ranjan Gogoi on behalf of himself and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra. Although the Court was only tasked with deciding a limited question of whether the petitioners had made out the narrow grounds for reviewing its 2018 judgment or not, the majority declined to answer this till such time certain overarching constitutional questions were answered by a larger bench. Its reason was that these constitutional questions relating to the right to religion, which directly affect the Sabarimala issue, were bound to come up in some of the other cases pending before the Court.
The minority judgment was written by Justice R.F. Nariman on behalf of himself and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. It held that the grounds for review had not been made out by the petitioners. Therefore, the review petitions should be disposed.
What is Sabarimala?
Sabarimala is a prominent Hindu temple dedicated to Hindu celibate deity Lord Ayyappa. It is located on a hilltop inside Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala’s Pathanamthitta district. It is the site of one of the largest annual pilgrimage in the world with an estimate of between 40 million and 50 million devotees visiting every year.
Sabarimala 2018: Ratio Decidendi
The practice of preventing the women’s entry in Sabarimala temple was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court with a majority of 4:1. It held the practice to be violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21 and 25(1) which guarantee the fundamental rights to equality, liberty and freedom of religion. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act was also struck down as unconstitutional. Rule 3(b) enabled the Hindu denominations to exclude women from public places of worship, if the exclusion was based on ‘custom’.
Sabarimala 2018: Dissenting Judgment
In the 2018 Sabarimala case, Justice Indu Malhotra delivered a dissenting opinion. She held that constitutional morality in a secular polity, such as India, requires a ‘harmonisation’ of various competing claims to fundamental rights. She said that the Court must respect a religious denomination’s right to manage their internal affairs, regardless of whether their practices are rational or logical.
She held that the Sabarimala Temple satisfies the requirements for being considered as a separate religious denomination. Therefore, she held that the Sabarimala Temple is protected under Article 26(b) to manage its internal affairs and is not subject to the social reform mandate under Article 25(2)(b), which applies only to Hindu denominations. She held that Rule 3(b) does not stand in conflict with its parent Act, the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act. She emphasised that the rule ‘carves out an exception in the case of public worship.’ She held that the rule was consistent with Article 26(b) of the Constitution. She also dismissed the argument that the Sabarimala custom violates Article 17 of the Indian Constitution.
Judges who Forwarded the Review Petition
The constitution bench headed by now retired, CJI Ranjan Gogoi forwarded the review petition to a bench of at least seven judges on 14th November, 2019. The constitution bench comprised of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Why the review petition?
The 2018 judgment of the Supreme Court allowing women between the age of 10 and 50 to enter the temple was followed by large and violent protests. The judgment created a huge unrest among the Hindus and the followers of Lord Ayyappa as the restriction on women’s entry in the temple was said to be a customary practice. The State of Kerala also threw up its hands and said that it was difficult to implement the decision of the Supreme Court. Due to these reasons, at least 19 review petitions were filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court. Review petitions usually lie to the same bench which had decided the case to be reviewed