LexINDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. versus STATE OF KER,ALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 618 A INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. B v. STATE OF KER,ALA & ORS. (Writ Petition (C) No. 373 of2006) OCTOBER 13,2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJJ, R. BANUMATHI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Re!igion/Religiou.1· Institutions - Gender Discrimination - C Exclusion of women from entering temple on basis of custom and usage - Constitutionality of - Petitioners pleaded for issue of appropriate writ or direction - to ensure entry of female devotees between age group JO to 50 yrs at the Lord Ayappa Temple at Sabrimala, Kera/a which has been denied to them on the basis of certain custom and usage; and to declare d(b) of the Kera/a Hindu D Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Ent1y) Rules. 1965 framed in exercise of powers cm1ferred ~y s.4 of the Kera/a Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Ent1y) Act, 1965 as 1mconstitutiona/ being violative of Arts. I 4. I 5, 25 and 51 A (e) of the Constitution - Held: Following' issues arise for consideration - E Whether the practice of excluding woman based upon a biological factor amounts to "discrimination", thereby violating Arts. I 4. I 5, I 7 and not protected by 'morality· as used in u!Arts. 25. 26 and whether such exclusion by a religious institution constitutes an "essential religious practice" u/Art.25 and whether they can assert such claim under the right to manage its own affairs in the matter of religion - F Furthe1; whether Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character and. !f so, is it permissible on the part of a 'religious denomination ' managed by a staflltory board and financed out of Consolidated Fund of Kera/a and Tamil Nadu to indulge in such practices violating constitutional principles/morality embedded in Arts.14.15(3),39(a) G and 51-A(e)-Also, whether d of the Rules. 1965 permits 'religious denomination' to ban ent1y of woman between the age of 10 to 50 years. and if so. would it not violate Arts.14.15(3) of the Constitution by restricting ently of woman on the ground of sex - . Lastly. whether f.3(b) of the Rules, 1965 is ultra vircs the Act, 1965 and if treated to he intra vi res. whether it will he violative of the provisions of Part-Ill H ·of the Constitution - Since, .sign/ficant issues arise for consideration. 618 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. STATE 619 OF KERALA & ORS. therefore. matter referred to the Chief Justice to constitute A appropriate larger bench - Constitution of India - Arts.14.15.17.25.26.32.39 and 51A - Kera/a Hindu Places of Pub,lic Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules. 1965 - 1:3(b) - Kera/a Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act. 1965 - s.4 - Public Interest Litigation. S. Mahendran v. The Secretary. Travancore Devaswom Board. Thiruvananthpuram a11d Ors. AIR 1993 Kentla 42; The Commissione1: Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakhshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirnr Mutt [1954] SCR 1005; Durgah Committee. Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali [1962) 1 SCR 383; Sri Venkatramana Devam & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors. [1958) SCR 895; Sastri Yagnapurushadji and Ors. v. M11ldas Bhudardas Vaishya and Anr. [1966) 3 SCR 242; Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Vara11asi v. State of U.P. (1997) 4 SCC 606 ! (1997) 2SCR1086; A.S. Nmyana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P. (1996) 9 SCC 548 : 11996] 3 SCR 543; Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and Ors. v. The Government o,f Tamil Nadu and Ors. AIR 2016 SC 209: (2015) 11 SCR 1110; Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar [1956] SCR 756; Sri Radhakanta Deb v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments. Orissa (1981) 2 SCC 226: 11981] 2 SCR 826; Nar Hari v. Badri Nath Temple Committee [1952] SCR 849; Adi Saiva Sti1achariyargal Na/a Sangam and others v. State of T.N. (2016) 2 SCC 725 : [2015) 11 SCR 1110; Mano,j Narula v. Union o,f India (2014) 9 SCC 1 : 120141 11 SCR 712; National Legal Services Awhorizv v. Union o,f'Jndia (2014) 5 SCC 438; State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Mo ti Ku res hi Kassab Jamar and others (2005) 8 SCC 534: (2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 582; Bennet Coleman & Co. and others v. Union o,f India and others (1972) 2 SCC 788 : (1973] 2 SCR 757; S. Rangarajan v. P . .Jagjivan Ram and others (1989) 2 SCC 574 : [1989) 2 SCR 204; Ram Jethmalani and others v. Union oflndia and others (2011) 8 SCC 1 : (2011] 8 SCR 725; M Nagarqj and others v. Union of India and others (2006) 8 SCC 212 : 12006] 7 Suppl. B c D E F G H 620 A B c D •. E j SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.