Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors. (Sabarimala Temple case)

Facts

• A custom, codified in Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, excluded women in the menstruating age group (10 to 50 years) from entering Sabarimala temple
• The exclusion was justified as the presiding deity, Lord Ayyappa, being a Naishtika Brahmachari (eternal celibate)
• The exclusion was challenged as discriminatory on the ground of sex and as not constituting an essential religious practice

Issue

1. Whether the exclusion of women of a specified age group from a temple, justified as a religious custom tied to the deity's celibate character, is protected under Art.25 as an essential religious practice, or whether it violates constitutional equality and anti-discrimination provisions.

Held

• The majority held the exclusion violated Arts.14, 15, 17, and 19
• Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to Art.26 protection
• The practice was not an essential religious practice; it was not shown to be integral to the faith in a manner that would be destroyed if discontinued
• Excluding women based on the physiological fact of menstruation is a form of discrimination incompatible with dignity and equality, inconsistent with Art.25(1)
• Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, holding courts should be cautious about second-guessing deeply held religious beliefs

Ratio Decidendi

Religious customs, even if long-standing, are not automatically protected under Art.25 as essential religious practices; they must be tested against constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination. Practices excluding a class of worshippers based on physiological characteristics associated with sex are unconstitutional, absent proof the practice is a core, indispensable tenet of the faith.