Background of the Case: The Sabarimala Temple case revolves around the centuries-old tradition at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, which barred women of menstruating age (10–50 years) from entering the temple premises. The case was brought before the Supreme Court of India by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, which challenged the constitutionality of this practice, arguing that it violated the fundamental rights of women guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
Key Issues Raised:
Whether the practice of barring women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple violates their fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution?
Whether the restriction on women’s entry into the temple constitutes an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution or whether it perpetuates gender discrimination and stereotypes?
Whether the Court should intervene to uphold gender equality and non-discrimination, even if it involves interference with religious customs and beliefs?
Arguments from Both Sides:
Indian Young Lawyers Association (Petitioner): They argued that the practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights. They contended that religious practices should not be exempt from constitutional scrutiny and that gender equality should prevail over discriminatory customs.
State of Kerala and Travancore Devaswom Board (Respondents): They defended the traditional practice at the Sabarimala temple, asserting that it was an essential aspect of religious belief and practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. They argued that the restriction on women’s entry was based on religious custom and should be respected as part of the temple’s traditions.
Judgement: In September 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgement in the Sabarimala Temple Entry case, by a majority of 4:1, striking down the prohibition on the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple. The court held that the practice was unconstitutional and discriminatory, violating the rights to equality and freedom of religion guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
The court emphasized that gender discrimination in religious practices was incompatible with the constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination. It held that religious customs and practices could not be used to justify discrimination against women and that the right to worship should be available to all, irrespective of gender.
Significance: The Sabarimala Temple Entry case is a landmark judgement that reaffirmed the principle of gender equality and non-discrimination in matters of religion and religious practices. The judgement has significant implications for women’s rights and religious freedom in India, setting a precedent for challenging discriminatory customs and traditions that perpetuate gender stereotypes. It represents a step towards ensuring greater inclusivity and equality within religious spaces and upholding constitutional values of dignity, liberty, and equality for all individuals, irrespective of gender.