Constitutional Morality vs. Religious Autonomy: In the Light of the Sabarimala Case

Author - Shreya Srivastava, Law Student, University of Lucknow

Abstract

The Sabarimala judgment represents a significant constitutional debate concerning the relationship between religious freedom, gender equality, and the protection of religious practices in India. The Apex Court, in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, examined the practice of restricting the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple and its compatibility with constitutional guarantees, particularly Articles 15, 25 and 26. While the judgment sought to uphold constitutional morality and gender equality, it also raised important concerns regarding the autonomy of religious denominations and the scope of judicial intervention in religious matters. This article examines the competing constitutional arguments surrounding the judgment, the doctrine of essential religious practices, the scope of Articles 25 and 26, and the tension between individual rights and collective religious autonomy.

Keywords

Constitutional morality, Religious autonomy, Celibacy, Menstruating women, Essential Religious Practices (ERP), Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, Shirur Mutt Case, Triple Talaq.

Overview 

The Sabrimala Case has been recently come into the limelight concerning the centuries-old debate of whether menstruating women of age (15-50) should be allowed to enter the Sabarimala Temple, thereby preserving the deity's sanctity, or be denied entry, constituting an abrogation of their fundamental rights.

The Sabarimala Temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa is one of the most renowned temples of India, located within the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghats of Kerala. Lord Ayyappa is said to be the son of Lord Shiva and Mohini (the female avatar of Lord Vishnu). The devotees of the deity undertake a 41-day penance, renouncing worldly pleasures and desires before visiting Lord Ayyappa. The deity is considered to be a celibate, and therefore the temple prohibits women of menstruating age from entering the temple.^[1]

This article elucidates the pertinent question of whether the Supreme Court or any court of law for that matter has the jurisdiction or the right of judicial review against the core religious practices and the dilemma between constitutional morality and religious autonomy.

Background of the Case

Traditionally, women of menstruating age were not allowed to enter the Sabarimala Temple due to the sole reason of preserving the Lord’s sanctity and the temple customs. In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a PIL regarding the ban on the entry of women. They contended that the custom was discriminatory in nature, it promoted gender injustice, and it should be regarded as unconstitutional.

On September 28th, 2018, the Apex Court ruled in favour of the Lawyers Association and held that the exclusion of women was unconstitutional and violative of women's right to equality and religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The court observed that Constitutional morality must prevail over social or religious morality This was a 5-judge Constitution Bench, and the only dissenting opinion was given by Justice Indu Malhotra, “Courts should not interfere in matters of deep religious faith or determine which of these religious practices are to be struck down, except if they are pernicious, oppressive, or a social evil, like Sati. Such matters should be decided by the religious community.”^[2]

Then in 2019, multiple review petitions were filed where the Supreme Court referred the case as ‘Kantaru Rajeevaru v Indian Young Lawyers’ Association’^[3] back to a larger bench for review.

The Court did not directly overturn the 2018 ruling but held that until the review decision is made or resolved, the 2018 judgment still holds significance.

Current Scenario: April, 2026

The 2018 judgment faced huge criticism and was accompanied by widespread protests by the devotees who viewed it as an encroachment of the apex court in religious customs.

Now, the matter has evolved into a larger constitutional reference before a 9-judge bench with broader questions of law with a focus shift from "Should women be allowed to enter Sabarimala?” to “What is the scope of religious freedom and judicial intervention?.” The present hearings also focus on the validity of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test. To understand the EPR, we must recall the ‘The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt Case.’^[4]

The Shirur Mutt Case of 1954 is a landmark case that laid the foundation for the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, which forms the foundation for cases like Triple Talaq and hijab disputes. The ruling tried to elaborate on its take on the equivocal articles namely, 25 (Freedom to practice and propagate any religion)^[5] and 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs)^[6].

Under the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, the Court held that only those practices are protected which are essential and integral to a religion and such requisites ought to be decided by the courts. Due to such authority of courts over religious matters, this issue is being heavily debated in the recent hearing of the Sabarimala case.

The Triple Talaq Analogy

The supporters of the 2018 ruling have drawn comparisons between the recent issue of Sabarimala and the triple talaq controversy, establishing both as manifestations of the patriarchal and downtrodden customs of Indian society. However, various scholars contest this analogy and believe that no direct parallels can be sought between the two issues, as one is the issue of personal laws that concerns preservation of equality and dignity within marital relationships, while other is an issue of religious custom relating to the entry of women rooted in the unique nature of the deity and sentiments of the devotees.

Legal Arguments^[7]

The majority is of the opinion that the exclusion of women from Sabarimala violated the fundamental rights of women and is discriminatory under Article 15. It also supports the impractical stigma of impurity associated with the menstruation of a woman. Prevailing customs that do not align with the modern principles of gender equality must be struck down or must adapt to societal changes. Thus, preventing women from entering the temple denotes the patriarchal nature of the society and consequently ought to be struck down by the competent court of law.

Although some sections also believe that the concept of rationality cannot be applied to religious issues. They argued that excluding women was a necessary practice in their religion. It also argued that the ban did not apply to all women but only to those aged 10 to 50 because of the deity's celibacy, not because it believes menstruation to be impure. The Hindu religion does not consider menstruation to be impure given the significance of the Kamakhya devi mandir in Assam, India. The issues of religious beliefs cannot be discussed in a secular forum. Religious beliefs must be balanced against constitutional principles of non-discrimination and equality.

Conclusion

This issue is not just another issue. With the decision of this appeal we will be able to determine the scope of constitutional morality and religious autonomy. It is the responsibility of the court to determine the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution and clarify to what extent the judiciary can intervene in religious matters.

Reference 

^[1]“Sabarimala Case, Judgement, Arguments Against & In Favour,” available at, https://share.google/PRpGmgkO7PKL6xsYe

^[2]“The Sabarimala Case: Recognition of Sacred Beliefs of Tribals and Adivasis,” available at, https://share.google/mwO0LqqesUhuIOeUt

^[3]Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 1

^[4]The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.

^[5]The Constitution of India, art. 25, 1950

^[6] The Constitution of India, art. 26, 1950

^[7]“Sabarimala & Triple Talaq: Different Case Studies for Gender Equality in India,” YouTube, available at: https://youtu.be/q1VyL6MCmfI?si=4UOPMM4jKb5hH7kb

● The Constitution of India, 1950

● Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, AIR 2018 SC 243, available at, https://share.google/gY78qoWaudUaPLiif

●Sabarimala Case, Judgement, Arguments Against & In Favour, available at, https://share.google/PRpGmgkO7PKL6xsYe

●     Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 1

●    The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar Ofi Shirur Mutt1954 AIR 282, 1954 SCR 1005

●  The Sabarimala Case Reference: Recognition of Sacred Beliefs of Tribals and Adivasis, available at, https://share.google/mwO0LqqesUhuIOeUt

● “Sabarimala & Triple Talaq: Different Case Studies for Gender Equality in India,” YouTube, available at: https://youtu.be/q1VyL6MCmfI?si=4UOPMM4jKb5hH7kb

Note - The information contained in this blog is for general informational purposes only. We endeavour to keep all content accurate, updated, and free from any form of misinformation or objectionable material. However, we shall not be responsible for any claims arising out of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or related issues; such responsibility lies solely with the respective authors. If you find any misinformation or objectionable content on this website, please report it to us at: editors.ilw@gmail.com