Case Summary: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala 2018

Background

The Sabarimala temple in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, is one of India's largest annual pilgrimage sites with over 50 million visitors each year. A long-standing temple custom barred women between the ages of 10 and 50 — women of menstruating age — from entering the shrine. This exclusion was given statutory form by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which permitted temple authorities to exclude women from worship as part of "immemorial custom and usage."

In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court, arguing the restriction violated the constitutional rights of Hindu women. The matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution bench, which delivered its judgment on 28 September 2018.

Issues Before the Court

• Is the exclusion of women aged 10–50 from Sabarimala an "essential religious practice" of the Ayyappa faith, protected by Article 25?
• Does Sabarimala qualify as a "religious denomination" with autonomy over its practices under Article 26?
• Is Rule 3(b) ultra vires the 1965 Act, and does it violate Part III of the Constitution?

The Judgment — 4:1

The bench struck down Rule 3(b) by a 4:1 majority, holding the age-based exclusion of women unconstitutional. Four separate opinions were delivered.

CJI Dipak Misra & Khanwilkar J. (majority opinion)

The main opinion held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and that the exclusion is not an essential part of the religion. It violates the right of Hindu women to practise their religion under Article 25(1). "Morality" in Article 25 means constitutional morality. Rule 3(b) is also ultra vires Sections 3 and 4 of the 1965 Act: Section 3 opens places of public worship to all classes and sections of Hindus despite any custom, and the proviso to Section 4(1) bars discrimination.

Nariman J. (concurring)

Justice Nariman concurred. He declared the custom violative of Article 25(1) and of the 1965 Act, and declared Rule 3(b) unconstitutional under Articles 25(1) and 15(1). He expressly refrained from reading Article 17 more widely.

Chandrachud J. (concurring)

Justice Chandrachud wrote the most expansive opinion, holding that the practice is rooted in an exclusionary notion of bodily "purity" incompatible with constitutional dignity. He argued that treating physiological characteristics as a basis for exclusion from the public sphere violates the constitutional guarantee of non-discrimination on the ground of sex. He also treated the exclusion as a form of untouchability under Article 17, and questioned the traditional "essential practices" doctrine as sometimes overly deferential to majority religious opinion.

Malhotra J. (dissent)

Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, holding that in a secular polity, courts should not ordinarily interfere with centuries-old religious customs unless the practice constitutes a social evil or pernicious harm. She reasoned that notions of the sacred and the religious are not subject to judicial scrutiny under the lens of constitutional morality: the worshippers' own sense of faith and devotion must be respected. She was not persuaded the petitioners (who were not devotees) had standing to challenge the practice.

Bench Votes at a Glance

Judge(s)	Vote	Key ground
CJI Misra & Khanwilkar J.	Strike down	Not a denomination or essential practice; violates Art 25(1); ultra vires ss. 3 and 4
Nariman J.	Strike down	Violates Arts 25(1) and 15(1) and the 1965 Act
Chandrachud J.	Strike down	Exclusion based on purity offends dignity and non-discrimination; Art 17
Malhotra J.	Uphold (dissent)	Courts should not interfere with bona fide religious practices; standing issue

Aftermath and Subsequent Proceedings

The verdict triggered large protests in Kerala. Initial attempts by women activists to enter the temple after the judgment were blocked. On 2 January 2019, two women — Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga — entered the Sabarimala sanctum under police protection, the first time women of menstruating age had done so in recent memory. Their entry provoked further protests and violence.

More than 50 review petitions were filed challenging the 2018 judgment. In November 2019, a five-judge bench (3:2) referred the matter — along with related constitutional questions about the right of religious denominations to exclude women in other faiths — to a larger bench without staying the original judgment. The matter was ultimately escalated to a nine-judge Constitution bench (CJI Surya Kant presiding), which heard arguments for 16 days starting 7 April 2026 and reserved judgment on 14 May 2026. The nine-judge bench's ruling will authoritatively settle the interplay between religious freedom (Art 25–26) and gender equality (Arts 14, 15) across multiple religions.

Significance

• Essential practices test: The main opinion found the exclusion was not essential to the religion. Malhotra J.'s dissent exposes the tension between this approach and genuine pluralism, and the test is itself under review before the nine-judge bench.
• Constitutional morality vs popular morality: The Misra/Chandrachud opinions firmly assert that constitutional values prevail over social consensus — a significant statement for progressive jurisprudence.
• Article 17 (untouchability): Chandrachud J. applied Article 17 to menstruation-based exclusion, which is doctrinally bold and contested. It was not the ground of the main opinion.
• Broader impact: The 2018 judgment (and the pending reference) has prompted fresh challenges to exclusionary practices at mosques, dargahs, and other religious sites across India.