“144.

In view of our aforesaid analysis, we record our conclusions in seriatim:

(i) In view of the law laid down by this Court in Shirur Mutt [The
Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri
Lakshmindra Thritha Swaminar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [1954] SCR 1005]
and S.P. Mittal [S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51], the
devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious
denomination. They do not have common religious tenets peculiar to
themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being,
other than those which are common to the Hindu religion. Therefore, the
devotees of Lord Ayyappa are exclusively Hindus and do not constitute a
separate religious denomination.
(ii) (ii) Article 25(1), by employing the expression ‘all persons’,
demonstrates that the freedom of conscience and the right to freely
profess, practise and propagate religion is available, though subject to the
restrictions delineated in Article 25(1) itself, to every person including
women. The right guaranteed under Article 25(1) has nothing to do with
gender or, for that matter, certain physiological factors specifically
attributable to women.
(iii) (iii) The exclusionary practice being followed at the Sabrimala temple
by virtue of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules violates the right of Hindu
women to freely practise their religion and exhibit their devotion towards
Lord Ayyappa. This denial denudes them of their right to worship. The
right to practise religion under Article 25(1) is equally available to both
men and women of all age groups professing the same religion.
(iv)
(iv) The impugned Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, framed under the 1965
Act, that stipulates exclusion of entry of women of the age group of 10 to 50
years, is a clear violation of the right of Hindu women to practise their religious
beliefs which, in consequence, makes their fundamental right of religion under
Article 25(1) a dead letter.
(v) (v) The term ‘morality’ occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution
cannot be viewed with a narrow lens so as to confine the sphere of
definition of morality to what an individual, a section or religious sect
may perceive the term to mean. Since the Constitution has been adopted
and given by the people of this country to themselves, the term public
morality in Article 25 has to be appositely understood as being
synonymous with constitutional morality.
(vi) (iv)The notions of public order, morality and health cannot be used as
colourable device to restrict the freedom to freely practise religion and
discriminate against women of the age group of 10 to 50 years by
denying them their legal right to enter and offer their prayers at the
Sabarimala temple.

(vii) The practice of exclusion of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years

being followed at the Sabarimala Temple cannot be regarded as an
essential part as claimed by the respondent Board.

(viii) In view of the law laid down by this Court in the second Ananda Marga
case, the exclusionary practice being followed at the Sabarimala Temple
cannot be designated as one, the non-observance of which will change or
alter the nature of Hindu religion. Besides, the exclusionary practice has
not been observed with unhindered continuity as the Devaswom Board
had accepted before the High Court that female worshippers of the age
group of 10 to 50 years used to visit the temple and conducted poojas in
every month for five days for the first rice feeding ceremony of their
children.

(ix) (ix) The exclusionary practice, which has been given the backing of a
subordinate legislation in the form of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules,
framed by the virtue of the 1965 Act, is neither an essential nor an
integral part of the religion.

(x) (x) A careful reading of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules makes it luculent
that it is ultra vires both Section 3 as well as Section 4 of the 1965 Act,
for the simon pure reason that Section 3 being a non-obstante provision
clearly stipulates that every place of public worship shall be open to all
classes and sections of Hindus, women being one of them, irrespective of
any custom or usage to the contrary.

(xi) (xi) Rule 3(b) is also ultra vires Section 4 of the 1965 Act as the proviso
to Section 4(1) creates an exception to the effect that the
regulations/rules made under Section 4(1) shall not discriminate, in any
manner whatsoever, against any Hindu on the ground that he/she belongs
to a particular section or class.

(xii) (xii) The language of both the provisions, that is, Section 3 and the
proviso to Section 4(1) of the 1965 Act clearly indicate that custom and
usage must make space to the rights of all sections and classes of Hindus
to offer prayers at places of public worship. Any interpretation to the
contrary would annihilate the purpose of the 1965 Act and incrementally
impair the fundamental right to practise religion guaranteed under Article
25(1). Therefore, we hold that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires
the 1965 Act.” 13 6. Nariman, J. concurred with these views, and
concluded, in paragraph 172, that the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala
cannot claim to be a religious denomination which can then claim the
protection of Article 26 of the Constitution of India as follows: “172. In
these circumstances, we are clearly of the view that there is no distinctive
name given to the worshippers of this particular temple; there is no
common faith in the sense of a belief common to a particular religion or
section thereof; or common organization of the worshippers of the
Sabarimala temple so as to constitute the said temple into a religious
denomination. Also, there are over a thousand other Ayyappa temples in
which the deity is worshipped by practicing Hindus of all kinds. It is
clear, therefore, that Article 26 does not get attracted to the facts of this
case.” The learned Judge thereafter concluded as follows: “177. The
facts, as they emerge from the writ petition and the aforesaid affidavits,
are sufficient for us to dispose of this writ petition on the points raised
before us. I, therefore, concur in the judgment of the learned Chief
Justice of India in allowing the writ petition, and declare that the custom
or usage of prohibiting women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from
entering the Sabarimala temple is violative of Article 25(1), and violative
of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry)
Act, 1965 made under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. Further, it is
also declared that Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public
Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 is unconstitutional being
violative of Article 25(1) and Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India.”.
Chandrachud, J. concluded, in paragraph 291, that Article 25 of the
Constitution of India implies equal entitlement of all persons to profess,
practice, and propagate religion, as follows: “291. The Constitution
protects the equal entitlement of all persons to a freedom of conscience
and to freely profess, protect and propagate religion. Inhering in the right
to religious freedom, is the equal entitlement of all persons, without
exception, to profess, practice and propagate religion. Equal participation
of women in exercising their right to religious freedom is a recognition
of this right. In protecting religious freedom, the framers subjected the
right to religious freedom to the overriding constitutional postulates of
equality, liberty and personal freedom in Part III of the Constitution. The
dignity of women cannot be disassociated from the exercise of religious
freedom. In the constitutional order of priorities, the right to religious
freedom is to be exercised in a manner consonant with the vision
underlying the provisions of Part III. The equal participation of women
in worship inheres in the constitutional vision of a just social order.”
(emphasis in original) Thereafter, the learned Judge stated his
conclusions as follows: “296. I hold and declare that:
a. 1) The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not satisfy the judicially
enunciated requirements to constitute a religious denomination under
Article 26 of the Constitution;
b. 2) A claim for the exclusion of women from religious worship, even
if it be founded in religious text, is subordinate to the constitutional
values of liberty, dignity and equality. Exclusionary practices are
contrary to constitutional morality;
c. 3) In any event, the practice of excluding women from the temple at
Sabarimala is not an essential religious practice. The Court must
decline to grant constitutional legitimacy to practices which derogate
from the dignity of women and to their entitlement to an equal
citizenship;
d. 4) The social exclusion of women, based on menstrual status, is a
form of untouchability which is an anathema to constitutional values.
Notions of “purity and pollution”, which stigmatize individuals, have
no place in a constitutional order;
e. 5) The notifications dated 21 October 1955 and 27 November 1956
issued by the Devaswom Board, prohibiting the entry of women
between the ages of ten and fifty, are ultra vires Section 3 of the
Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act,
1965 and are even otherwise unconstitutional; and
f. 6) Hindu women constitute a ‘section or class’ of Hindus under
clauses (b) and (c) of Section 2 of the 1965 Act. Rule 3(b) of the 1965
Rules enforces a custom contrary to Section 3 of the 1965 Act. This
directly offends the right of temple entry established by Section 3.
Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the 1965 Act.” 8. Indu Malhotra, J. dissented.
The summary of her conclusions is reflected in paragraph 312 of the
judgment as follows:

“312. The summary of the aforesaid analysis is as follows:

(i) The Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained for
want of standing. The grievances raised are nonjusticiable
 at the behest of the Petitioners and Intervenors involved
herein.
(ii) The equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 does not
override the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 25
to every individual to freely profess, practise and
propagate their faith, in accordance with the tenets of their
religion.
(iii) Constitutional Morality in a secular polity would imply the
harmonisation of the Fundamental Rights, which include
the right of every individual, religious denomination, or
sect, to practise their faith and belief in accordance with
the tenets of their religion, irrespective of whether the
practise is rational or logical.
(iv) The Respondents and the Intervenors have made out a
plausible case that the Ayyappans or worshippers of the
Sabarimala Temple satisfy the requirements of being a
religious denomination, or sect thereof, which is entitled to
the protection provided by Article 26. This is a mixed
question of fact and law which ought to be decided before
a competent court of civil jurisdiction.
(v) (v) The limited restriction on the entry of women during
the notified age-group does not fall within the purview of
Article 17 of the Constitution.
(vi) (vi) Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is not ultra vires Section
3 of the 1965 Act, since the proviso carves out an
exception in the case of public worship in a temple for the
benefit of any religious denomination or sect thereof, to
manage their affairs in matters of religion.” 9. What
emerges on a reading of the aforesaid four majority
judgments is that there is a clear consensus on the
following issues: 9.1. The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do
not constitute a separate religious denomination and
cannot, therefore, claim the benefit of Article 26 or the
proviso to Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public
Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 [“1965 Act”].
This is outlined in paragraph 144(i) of the judgment of the
learned C.J.; paragraph 172 of the judgment of Nariman,
J.; and paragraph 296(1) of the judgment of Chandrachud,
J. The judgment of Malhotra, J. records an opposite
tentative conclusion in paragraph 312(iv). 9.2. The four
 majority judgments specifically grounded the right of
women between the ages of 10 to 50, who are excluded
from practicing their religion, under Article 25(1) of the
Constitution, emphasizing the expression “all persons” and
the expression “equally” occurring in that Article, so that
this right is equally available to both men and women of
all ages professing the same religion. This proposition
becomes clear from paragraph 144
1. (ii) and (iii) of the judgment of the learned C.J.; from
paragraph 174 read with paragraph 177 of the judgment
of Nariman, J.; and paragraph 291 of the judgment of
Chandrachud, J. As against this, the judgment of
Malhotra, J. is contained in paragraph 312(ii). 9.3.
Section 3 of the 1965 Act traces its origin to Article
25(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, and would apply
notwithstanding any custom to the contrary, to enable
Hindu women the right of entry in all public temples
open to Hindus, so that they may exercise the right of
worship therein. As a concomitant thereof, Rule 3(b) of
the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 [“1965 Rules”] is
violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India and
ultra vires Section 3 of the 1965 Act. This proposition
flows from paragraph 144(iii), (iv), (x), and (xii) of the
judgment of the learned C.J.; paragraph 177 of the
judgment of Nariman, J.; and paragraph 296(6) of the
judgment of Chandrachud, J. As against this, Malhotra,
J. states the opposite conclusion in paragraph 312(vi) of
her judgment.1 1 In the judgment of the learned Chief
Justice, whether the 1965 Rules govern the temple in
question at all is raised, which the larger bench, if
constituted, may consider it appropriate to decide. This is
will result in a piecemeal adjudication as a fresh
opportunity to interested parties may then have to be
given in the pending review petitions. The necessity for
going into this question in the review petitions filed is
itself questionable. On the assumption that the aforesaid
Rule does not apply, the striking down of an inapplicable
rule does not in any manner detract from the ratio of the
majority judgment. The ratio of the majority judgment,
 insofar as this aspect of the case is concerned, is that
Section 3 of the 1965 Act will apply by reason of the
non-obstante clause contained therein, as a result of
which every place of public worship which is open to
Hindus or any section or class thereof is open to all
Hindus to worship therein in the like manner and to the
like extent as any other Hindu; and no Hindu of
whatsoever section or class shall in any manner be
prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering any
such place of public worship or from worshipping or
offering prayers thereat or performing religious service
therein.

Sabarimala is a temple dedicated to Shasta, in Pathanamthitta District, Kerala,

India.[1] Women and girls of reproductive age have traditionally not been
permitted to worship there, as Shasta is a celibate deity.[2] The Kerala high court
provided a legal justification for this tradition, and since 1991 onwards, women
and girls (from age 10 to age 50) were legally forbidden to enter the temple.
In September 2018, a judgement of the Supreme Court of India ruled that
all Hindu pilgrims, regardless of gender, could enter the temple.
The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that "any exception placed
on women because of biological differences violates the Constitution."
Specifically, the court held that the ban violated the right to equality
under Article 14 and the right to freedom of religion under Article 25.[3][4]
This verdict led to protests by millions of Ayyappan devotees who opposed the
verdict.[5] A month later, about ten female activists attempted to enter the temple
despite threats of physical assault. They were unsuccessful. [6][7] In the early
hours of 2 January 2019, two women activists entered the temple through the
rear gate in defiance of ongoing protest. When they heard that women had
entered Sabarimala, the temple priests and authorities closed the temple for
purification rituals.[8][9][10]
Legend[edit]
Many legends exist about the god Ayyappan and the creation of the temple.
One legend concerns Ayyappan, the celibate deity of Sabarimala Temple, and
the evil demoness Mahishi whom he defeated in battle. Mahishi had been
cursed to live the life of a demon until the child born
to Shiva and Vishnu defeated her in a battle. Ayyappan, the abandoned son of
Shiva and Mohini (an incarnation of Vishnu),[11][12] could therefore set her free
after defeating her. She transformed into a beautiful woman after her defeat.
After the battle, the young woman proposed marriage to Ayyappan. However,
he refused, explaining that he had been ordained to go to the forest, live the life
of a brahmachari and answer the prayers of devotees. [13] However, the young
woman was persistent, so Ayyappan promised to marry her the day "kanni-
swamis" , or new devotees, stopped visiting Sabarimala Temple. Sabarimala
was visited by kanni-swamis every year, and she was not able to marry
Ayyappan. The woman is worshipped as the goddess Maalikapurathamma at a
neighbouring temple.[14]
History[edit]
According to the Memoir of the Survey of the Travancore and Cochin States,
women of reproductive age had been denied entry to the Sabarimala temple
since at least the 19th century. Lieutenants Benjamin Swain Ward and Peter
Eyre Conner, who completed the survey at the end of 1820, reported that, at the
time, "Old women and young girls may approach the temple, but those who
have attained the age of puberty and to a certain time in life are forbidden to
approach, as all sexual intercourse in that vicinity is averse to this deity (Lord
Ayyappa)."[15]
Before 1991, when the Kerala High Court forbade the entry of women to
Sabarimala, many women had visited the temple, although mostly for non-
religious reasons.[16] There are records of women pilgrims visiting the temple to
conduct the first rice-feeding ceremony of their children (called Chorounu) at
the temple premises.[17] On 13 May 1940, even
[18][19]
the Maharani of Thiruvithamkoor visited the temple. In 1986, when young
actresses Jayashree, Sudha Chandran,
Anu, Vadivukkarasi and Manorama danced near the deity at the pathinettam
padi (18 steps) for the Tamil movie Nambinar Keduvathillai, a fine of Rs. 1000
was imposed on each of the actresses and the director. The Devaswom Board,
which maintains the temple and premises, was also fined Rs. 7500, because it
had given the director permission to film at Sabarimala. [20] Former Karnataka
minister Jayamala has also claimed to have entered Sabarimala and touched the
idol in 1986, when she was a young woman.[21][22]
In 1990, the Chorounu ceremony for the granddaughter of a
former Devaswom commissioner was held at Sabarimala in the presence of
female relatives.[20][23] Following a court case in connection with this event, the
high court of Kerala prohibited women and girls between ages 10 and 50 from
entering Sabarimala.[23] In 1995, the district collector Valsala Kumari, aged 42,
visited the Sabarimala shrine (although she did not climb the pathinettam
padi to the inner sanctum) under special permission. Her goal was to obtain
first-hand information about the conditions at the temple in connection with her
official duties. In doing so, she was the first woman recognised as legitimate by
the temple's authorities.[24] In the same year, the local press reported that two
young women, possibly wives of VIPs, had entered the shrine despite police
oversight.[24] In January 2018, temple authorities made it mandatory for female
devotees to provide proof of their age when visiting Sabarimala.[25]
Kerala High Court verdict[edit]
In 1990, S. Mahendran started a legal petition on the notion that young women
were visiting Sabarimala.[23] The verdict was announced in 1991, when
Justices K. Paripoornan and K. Balanarayana Marar of the Kerala High
Court banned women and girls between 10 and 50 years of age from
Sabarimala. They stated that such a restriction was in accordance with tradition.
[26]
In addition, the High Court directed the Government of Kerala to use police
force if necessary to prevent women from entering the temple. [27] The final
decision of the court was as follows:[28]
Such restriction (of women) imposed by the Devaswom Board is not violative
of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Such restriction is also not
violative of the provisions of Hindu Place of Public Worship (Authorisation of
Entry) Act, 1965, since 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.
Supreme Court verdict[edit]

Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The

State Of Kerala
Court Supreme Court of India

Full case Indian Young Lawyers

name Association & Ors. v. State of
Kerala & Ors.

Decided 28 September 2018

Citation(s) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

373 OF 2006

Court membership

Judges Dipak Misra, A.N.

sitting Khanwilkar, Rohintan
Nariman, Indu Malhotra, D.Y.
Chandrachud Reddy

Case opinions

Majority Deepak Mishra, A.N.

Khanwilkar, Rohintan Nariman,
D.Y. Chandrachud

Dissent Indu Malhotra

In 2006, six female members of the Indian Young Lawyers' Association
petitioned the Supreme Court of India, asking them to lift the ban on women of
reproductive age.[29] They argued that the practice was a violation of their
constitutional rights. They also questioned the validity of provisions in the
Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules Act of
1965.[30]
On 28 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that women of all
ages could enter the temple of Sabarimala.[31] The court stated:
We have no hesitation in saying that such an exclusionary practice violates the
right of [a woman] to visit and enter a temple, to freely practise Hindu religion
and to exhibit her devotion towards Lord Ayyappa. The denial of this right to
women significantly denudes them of their right to worship.
The verdict was passed with a 4-1 majority. Chief Justice Dipak Misra and
Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, R. F. Nariman and D. Y. Chandrachud supported
the admission of women to the temple, while Justice Indu Malhotra dissented.
[32]
Indu Malhotra stated that every individual should be allowed to practice their
faith regardless of whether the practice is rational or logical. The Supreme
Court based their decision on the violation of Article 25 (Clause 1) and Rule
3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Worship.[32]
On 14 November 2019, The Supreme Court Constitution Bench referred
the review petitions as well as the writ petitions to a larger bench of at least
seven judges, to be constituted by the Honourable Chief Justice of India. Larger
benches had previously considered similar cases, such as the entry of Muslim
women into mosques and the entry of Parsi women married to non-Parsi men
into the holy fireplace.[clarification needed][33] The decision to refer the petitions was
supported by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Ajay Manikrao
Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra. Justices Rohinton Fali
[33]
Nariman and Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud dissented.
Arguments against the entry of women[edit]
According to one argument against the entry of women, the prohibition of
female worshipers is traditional. Acharya Yugbhushan Suri Maharaj, a
Jain acharya, has said that women's entry is a religious issue connected to
fundamental rights. Commenting on the Sabarimala debate, he said, "Whether it
is Sabarimala or Jharkhand's Shikharji, the agitations are for sanctity...Religion
talks about inner belief and sanctity. This should be respected. I am not against
the judiciary or the Supreme Court, but they should not overlook the belief of
the people."[34] Yoga guru Ravi Shankar also supported the traditional
prohibition of women.[35]
Others argue that allowing women to enter would disrespect the male deity. J.
Sai Deepak, the lawyer representing two women's groups and a devotee sangam
in the Supreme Court case,[36] has argued that the deity Ayyappan should be
regarded as a person, giving him the constitutional right to privacy under Article
21. When women and girls of reproductive age visit him against his will, the
argument follows, it violates Ayyappan's privacy.[37] Some Hindu women
believe that Ayyappan himself placed restrictions on women entering the temple
because he wanted to be celibate, and the presence of women would distract
him from this cause.[13]
A few reporters have pointed out that gender segregation exists in other Hindu
temples. Some prominent temples also restrict men's entry. For example,
the Brahma temple in Pushkar prevents married men from entering the inner
sanctum. Other temples prevent men from entering on certain days.[38][39][40]
Some women choose not to enter the temple, believing that it would be an insult
to Malikappurathamma's love and sacrifice.[14]
There is also a rule for men who want to pray at the temple; they have to take a
vow of celibacy for 4 weeks leading up to their visit. [better source needed] Some argue
that female pilgrims will 'distract' the male pilgrims, who follow a 41-day
period of strict abstinence from sex.[41] A statement by the president of the
Travancore Devaswom Board stated that allowing women into the temple will
lead to 'immoral activities' and turn the place into 'a spot for sex tourism, like
Thailand'.[42][43]
Another argument is that the Sabarimala temple is situated at the top of a hill
surrounded by mountains and dense forests, which some regard as physically
challenging for women to navigate. [44] An official of Sabarimala has pointed out
that the lack of adequate sanitation facilities for women would make their
journey difficult.[45] Hospital facilities are also sparse.[45]
Arguments in favour of the entry of women[edit]
Those in favour of allowing women entry to the Sabarimala temple concentrate
on the specific point that menstruation is not impure, and the more general point
that women deserve equal rights.[46] Activists, such as the Dalit public
intellectual, Sunny M. Kapicadu, see the struggle as a continuation of Kerala
renaissance which sought to undo centuries of caste and gender inequality and
oppression. They therefore welcome the verdict as a reaffirmation of
constitutional morality.[47]
Some in favor of women's entry state that their opponents are motivated
by taboos surrounding menstruation.[48] According to the historian Rajan
Gurukkal there is "neither ritual sanctity nor scientific justification" for the
argument of menstrual pollution. He opines that the shrine was originally a "cult
spot" for a tribal deity, Ayyanar, of local forest dwellers before it became a
place of worship for Ayyappa in the 15th century. Unlike traditional Hindu
myth (created by mistranslation of texts) that menstruation is impure, the tribal
people considered it to be auspicious and a symbol of fertility. They gathered at
the temple along with their women and children of all ages until the 1960s.
Gurukkal also argues that there is documented evidence of
young savarna women making their way into the temple until the 1980s.[49]
Over 100 temples in Kerala are dedicated to Ayyappan. Women are allowed to
enter all other temples of Ayyappan, so some argue that making an exception
for Sabarimala is unusual and inconsistent.[50][51]
The chief minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, is in favor of women's entry to
Sabarimala. He stated in 2018 that his party (LDF) has always stood for gender
equality and would therefore provide facilities for women pilgrims to
Sabarimala.[52]
Attempts to enter the temple[edit]
Prior to the Supreme Court verdict of September 2018, there had been sporadic
entries of women to the temple. Former actress and politician Jayamala, for
example, claimed to have entered Sabarimala in 1987 as a young woman.
[53]
Following the 2018 verdict, there was immediate resistance from protesters,
who made it difficult for women to enter. When Sabarimala was opened for
pilgrims in October 2018 for the first time since the Supreme Court verdict,
protests were immediately staged at nearby Nilakkal and Pamba, both
considered to be basecamps for pilgrims on their way to the temple. Many
women journalists who had come to report on the opening were assaulted by the
protesters. Police had to use a lathi charge to disperse the protesters.[54][55] The
protesters also forced a 40-year-old woman from East Godavari, Andhra
Pradesh to stop her journey to Sabarimala at Pamba. [56][57] Suhasini Raj, a
journalist working for the New York Times, was also forced to return after she
was blocked by protesters near Marakkoottam.[58]
Two women attempted to enter the temple on 19 October 2018 but were
blocked by protesters about 100 metres away from the Garbagriha. They left
after the priest warned that he would close the Garbagriha if they attempted to
climb the 18 sacred steps leading to the deity. [59] One of the women, Rehana
Fathimam was later arrested on grounds of "hurting religious sentiments" for
posting a photo on Facebook. The photos showed her sitting in an allegedly
'obscene pose' after dressing up as a devotee of Ayyappa. She was jailed for 18
days and then released on bail.[60][61]
A 46-year-old woman who claimed that "her body was full of divine power
from Ayyappa, motivating her to climb Sabarimala" was denied police
protection. She had to return home.[62] Another female journalist and the
president of Kerala Dalit Mahila Federation also had to leave without reaching
the deity due to the actions of protesters. [63] A female Dalit activist, despite
being accompanied by police, was attacked at various places by mobs on her
way to Sabarimala and decided to return after reaching Pamba. She lost her job,
was forced to leave her home and had to live in an undisclosed location under
police protection after threats to her life from the protesters.[64]
Trupti Desai, women's rights activist and founder of Bhumata Brigade, was
blocked by protesters at Cochin International Airport on 16 November 2018
while on her journey to Sabarimala. She decided to return home after being
stranded inside the airport for more than 14 hours, vowing to come back again.
[65]

Four trans women who attempted to visit Sabarimala temple were sent back
by Erumely police on 16 December 2018. They alleged that the police harassed
them and asked them to dress up like men if they wanted to visit the shrine.
Even though they agreed to the demands of the police, they were eventually sent
back, with policing citing a general threat to law and order at Sabarimala.
[66]
They returned to the shrine two days later, as the temple authorities did not
object to the presence of trans women at Sabarimala.[67]
A group of 11 women belonging to the Chennai-based women's rights'
organisation Manithi was chased away by protesters soon after setting out from
the Pamba basecamp on 23 December 2018. The women were under police
protection. While the police claimed that the group voluntarily left the area
without visiting the shrine, the group alleged that the Kerala Police pressured
them to leave.[68]
Protests and hartals against the Supreme Court verdict[edit]

Sabarimala protests

Bharatiya Janata Party members protesting against

Sabarimala women entry

Date October 2018 - January 2019

Location Kerala, India

Caused by Protests following the Supreme Court

 of India's verdict for allowing all
womens to enter Sabarimala temple.
 To stop womens from
Goals
entering Sabarimala temple
Methods Harthal
Parties
 Supreme  Governm
Court of ent of
India India
 Governm  Bharatiya
ent of Janata
Kerala Party
 Commun  Indian
ist Party National
of India Congress
(Marxist)
 Commun
ist Party
of India
In the period following the Supreme Court verdict, a total of seven hartals were
organised in Kerala by various Hindu groups under the flag of the Sabarimala
Karma Samithi.[citation needed]
October 2018[edit]
The first hartal was observed in Pathanamthitta district on 7 October 2018.
[69]
The BJP called for this hartal in response to alleged police violence against
Prakash Babu, state president of Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, during a
protest march held on 6 October 2018.[70][71]
The second hartal was held on 18 October 2018. [72] In the lead-up to the hartal,
Malayalam actor and BJP member Kollam Thulasi said that women who enter
Sabarimala should be ripped in half. He also declared that the faithful should
prevent women from entering the temple. [73][74] A First Information Report was
registered against him, citing his "deliberate and malicious acts, intended to
outrage religious feelings of any class."[75] The Chief Minister of Kerala,
Pinarayi Vijayan, held "RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh)-driven upper
caste religious fanatics" responsible for the violent agitation. [76] The Indian
National Congress also launched a protest demanding the state government file
a review petition against the Supreme Court's verdict. [77] Rahul Easwar, a
member of the family of Sabarimala priests and leader of Ayyappa Dharma
Sena, was arrested for inciting violence and rioting near the Sabarimala temple
complex. He was denied bail on the grounds that he was likely to return to
Sabarimala to incite further trouble.[78][79] By the end of October, over 3,000
people had been arrested and around 500 cases were registered at police stations
across Kerala.[80]
November 2018[edit]
The third hartal occurred on 2 November 2018. The putative cause was the
death a lottery ticket seller, Sivadasan, who had gone on the Sabarimala
pilgrimage and was found dead near Laha. BJP called for a hartal in
Pathanamthitta district. They blamed police action at Pamba for his death,
although police confirmed that Sivadasan had died in a traffic accident. [81][82][83]
[84]

Anticipating protests, IPC Section 144, which can be used to prevent the
assembly of people in the possibility of danger, was declared
at Sannidhanam, Pamba, Nilakkal and Elavunkal when the temple reopened for
the 41-day Mandalam Makaravilakku pilgrim season on 16 November 2018.
[85]
Around 70 people were arrested for defying these orders and protesting near
the main temple. This included K. Surendran, state secretary of the Bharatiya
Janata Party, and K.P. Sasikala, leader of Hindu Aikya Vedi, who were taken
into preventive detention during their journey to the temple on 17 November. [86]
[87]

The fourth hartal in Kerala was organized by the Bharatiya Janata Party on 17
November 2018. The reason given for this hartal was the arrest of K P Sasikala.
It was a statewide demonstration.[87][88][89][90][91]
On 21 November, Thiruvananthapuram City Police Commissioner P Prakash
threatened Non-resident Indians with "getting their passports cancelled, and
forcing [them] to return to India." The police commissioner accused them of
"inciting riots and fermenting trouble over the Sabarimala issue" and using
social media to deliberately create instability in the region. [92] The Kerala police
department was severely criticised by the High Court for the restrictions it had
implemented in Sabarimala, which had caused difficulty for pilgrims. [citation
needed]
Following this criticism from the High Court, all restrictions except
Section 144 were gradually removed.[93] The Indian National
Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party launched separate protests demanding the
state government revoke the Section 144 restrictions.
December 2018[edit]
The fifth hartal took place on 11 December 2018. Bharatiya Janata Party called
this hartal in the Thiruvananthapuram District of Kerala. It was in response to
the alleged police action against the march organised by Bharatiya Janata Yuva
Morcha on 10 December 2018.[94][95][96][97]
A 49-year-old man committed suicide in front of the protest site on 13
December 2018; afterward, BJP called for another statewide hartal. It was the
sixth hartal invoked by BJP on Sabarimala issue since the beginning of the
Mandalam Makaravilakku pilgrim season at Sabarimala. [98][99][100][101] The BJP
alleged that the man was an Ayyappa devotee who had immolated himself in
protest against the restrictions imposed by the Kerala government at
Sabarimala.[102] The police maintained that the man had committed suicide due
to personal reasons and his dying declaration did not mention Sabarimala.[103]
On 26 December, thousands of Ayyapa devotees, mainly women, took part in
Ayyappa Jyothi, an event organised by Hindutva groups to protest the Supreme
Court verdict. In some places, the participants at the event were attacked by
activists from the Communist Party of India and Democratic Youth Federation
of India. In response, Kerala Police arrested 16 people who allegedly planned
the attacks.[104] Cases are also filed against 1400 people who took part in the
Ayyappa Jyothi event.[105]
As a counter protest, women supporting the Supreme Court verdict formed a
human chain called Vanitha Mathil (Women's Wall), which stretched across the
state of Kerala. Around three to five million women participated in the event.
Vanitha Mathi was organised by the state government.[106]
January 2019[edit]
The seventh hartal was on 3 January 2019. Sabarimala Karma Samithi called a
statewide hartal in Kerala, supported by the Bharatiya Janata Party. The hartal
was provoked by the successful entry of two women, Bindu Ammini and
Kanakadurga, into Sabarimala.[107][108] One of the protesters, Chandran Unnithan,
a member of Sabarimala Karma Samiti, was injured when CPI(M) members
started pelting stones and he died shortly of severe head injuries.[109]
Many cases of violence and arson were reported from across the state during
this particular hartal. Fed up with the economic and social effects of the hartals,
trade organisations in Kerala had already decided to observe 2019 as 'anti-hartal
year' and to defy future hartals.[110] Even though police had promised them
adequate protection, shops which opened in defiance of the hartal were widely
attacked; some were even set on fire. Media organisations boycotted all press
conferences by the Bharatiya Janata Party following unprovoked, targeted
attacks on journalists.[111][112]
More than 100 buses belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
were damaged. Offices, libraries and businesses related to the ruling Communist
party were damaged, and incidents of street fights between CPI(M) and BJP
cadres were reported in many places. Anticipating further violence, Section 144
was imposed in the towns of Palakkad and Manjeswaram the next day.[113][114]
There were reports of attacks on the homes of both women who had tried to
enter Sabarimala as well as those who supported the verdict. A hotel owned
by Kerala Tourism Development Corporation at Chennai was also damaged by
unidentified men protesting against women's entry to Sabarimala. Leaders of the
ruling CPI(M) compared those unleashing violence over the Sabarimala verdict
to Taliban and Khalistan terrorists.[115][116][117]
Successful entries[edit]
On 2 January 2019, two women, Bindu Ammini (aged 40) and Kanakadurga
(aged 39), entered the Sabarimala shrine,[118][119] which was confirmed with
images from CCTV.[120][121] Ammini is a resident of Koyilandy in Kozhikode
district and Kanakadurga is a native of Angadipuram in the district of
Malappuram. After they entered, the temple was closed for purification, [8][9] and
many protested.[122][123] They were the first women to enter Sabarimala following
the decision by the Supreme Court to end the 18-year-old restriction on women
of menstrual age entering the shrine.[124][125] Ammini and Kanakadurga entered
the temple not via the 18 sacred steps but through the staff gate. They did so
with police escort at around 3:45 AM on Wednesday 2 January 2019, when few
other devotees or protesters were in the vicinity. [126] They had previously
attempted to climb the hill on 24 December, but they were blocked by
protesters. According to reports, both women had stayed at a secret location,
vowing not to return home until they offered prayers at the temple. [127] The
Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, confirmed that the pair had entered
the temple, and underlined that the police force was duty-bound to give
protection to anyone who asked for security. [128] He referred to the entry as a
historic moment.[119]
Their entry was followed by various more successful entries of women to the
temple in the same month. On 4 January 2019, a 46-year-old woman from Sri
Lanka entered the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple and prayed in the Garbagriha.
[129]
She became the first woman under the age of 50 to have climbed the 18 holy
steps with irumudikkettu (offerings to the deity) since the Supreme Court
verdict.[130][131] Four days later, a 36-year-old female Dalit leader claimed to have
entered the temple.[132] To prove the claim, a Facebook group called 'Navodhana
Keralam Sabarimalayilekku' ('Renaissance Kerala to Sabarimala') posted a
series of videos and photos showing the Dalit leader at Sabarimala.[133]
On 18 January 2019, the Government of Kerala informed the Supreme Court
that, after Ammini and Kanakadurga, 51 women of reproductive age dodged
protesters to enter the Sabarimala shrine. [134] Media reports have noted several
discrepancies in the list submitted by Kerala government; for example, their list
included post-menopausal women and even one man.
 Cover page
 Table of contents

 Table of Abbrivations
PIL - Public Intrest litication

 Index of Authorities

 Statement of Jurisdiction
Sabarimala temple is located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala. The
temple has a unique practice in which devotees must undertake 41 days of
penance and renounce worldly things. According to devotees, Lord
Ayyappa is unmarried. Women of menstruating years were prohibited
from entering the temple to protect the purity of the deity.
This was first challenged in Kerala High Court. The court in S.
Mahendran v The Secretary, Travancore held that the exclusion was
constitutional and justified.
 In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a PIL(public
interest litigation) before the Supreme Court challenging the Sabarimala
Temple's prohibition of women. In their PIL they challenged that the
practice is unconstitutional as it violates
Article 14 – states that 'Right to Equality and
Article 25 - Freedom of Religion of women. .

On August 18th 2006, the Supreme Court issued notices to the parties.
On March 7th 2008, the matter was referred to a 3-Judge Bench. The
matter was next heard seven years later, on January 11th 2016. On
February 20th 2017, the Court expressed its inclination to refer the case
to a Constitution Bench. Finally on October 13th 2017, the 3-Judge
Bench composed of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices R. Banumathi
and Ashok Bhushan ordered a 5-Judge Constitution Bench to pass
Judgement on the case.

 Statements of facts

On 28th September 2018, the Court delivered its verdict in this case by
4:1 majority which held that the restriction of women in Sabarimala
Temple is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R F
Nariman, Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice D Y Chandrachud
constituted the majority. It held that the practice violated the fundamental
rights to equality, liberty and freedom of religion, Articles 14, 15, 19(1),
21 and 25(1).
It struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public
Worship Act as unconstitutional.

The lone woman on the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented. She said
that issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily be
interfered by the Court. The Court should not interrupt in this matter
unless if there is any resentful person from that section or religion. The
notion of rationality should not be seen in religious matters. She also held
that shrine and the deity are protected by Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution.

 Issues Raised
 To stop womens from entering Sabarimala temple
  Lord Ayyappa is unmarried. Women of menstruating years were
prohibited from entering the temple to protect the purity of the
deity. Age 10-50 in general.

 Summery of Arguments

Article 25(1), by employing the expression ‘all persons’, demonstrates

that the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and
propagate religion is available, though subject to the restrictions
delineated in Article 25(1) itself, to every person including women. The
right guaranteed under Article 25(1) has nothing to do with gender or, for
that matter, certain physiological factors specifically attributable to
women

The exclusionary practice being followed at the Sabrimala temple by

virtue of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules violates the right of Hindu women
to freely practise their religion and exhibit their devotion towards Lord
Ayyappa. This denial denudes them of their right to worship. The right to
practise religion under Article 25(1) is equally available to both men and
women of all age groups professing the same religion.

 Arguments advanced

The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious

denomination. They do not have common religious tenets peculiar to
themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being,
other than those which are common to the Hindu religion. Therefore, the
devotees of Lord Ayyappa are exclusively Hindus and do not constitute a
separate religious denomination.

 Prayer