Sabarimala women entry case: Were you the ‘Chief Minister’; what was your ‘business’, Supreme Court asks lawyers’ body
The Association was the original writ petitioner which challenged the prohibition on entry of women aged between 10 years and 50 years into the Kerala temple
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The is currently hearing review petitions regarding its 2018 judgment that allowed the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple. During the hearing, a nine-judge Bench questioned the (the right to bring an action or be heard in court) of the NGO, Indian Young Lawyers Association, which filed the original PIL challenging the temple's restrictive practices. This highlights the ongoing debate between individual fundamental rights, particularly the right to equality and religion, and the collective right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This issue is deeply rooted in the tension between various fundamental rights guaranteed by the . The original 2018 judgment prioritized individual rights, specifically (Right to Equality), (Prohibition of discrimination), and (Freedom of religion for individuals), ruling that the restriction on women's entry was unconstitutional. Conversely, the review petitions emphasize the collective rights of the religious denomination, invoking , which grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. The nine-judge bench is now re-examining the scope of these rights and the criteria for determining what constitutes an 'essential religious practice'. UPSC aspirants must understand the 'Essential Religious Practices' test, a judicial doctrine used to identify practices central to a religion and thus protected under and .
Governance
The Supreme Court's questioning of the NGO's 'business' or is a crucial development in jurisprudence. Traditionally, required a direct personal injury to approach the court. However, the , particularly under Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer, relaxed this rule to allow public-spirited individuals or organizations to file cases on behalf of those unable to do so themselves. The current bench's scrutiny suggests a potential tightening of this relaxed norm, particularly in sensitive religious matters where the petitioners might not be directly affected. This raises questions about who has the right to challenge religious customs—only the affected individuals or society at large. Aspirants should study the evolution of , the concept of epistolary jurisdiction (initiating a case based on a letter), and the potential for misuse of by 'busy-bodies'.
Social
The Sabarimala issue is a prominent case study in the intersection of religion, tradition, and gender equality. The restriction on women of menstruating age (10-50 years) is rooted in historical customs and the belief in the celibate nature of the deity, Lord Ayyappa. The original judgment viewed this restriction as a form of gender discrimination, violating the fundamental rights of women. The ongoing review highlights the complexity of reconciling deeply held religious beliefs with modern democratic principles of equality and non-discrimination. The debate extends beyond Sabarimala, influencing other cases involving religious customs and women's rights, such as female genital mutilation (FGM) and entry into mosques. Aspirants must analyze how the judiciary balances the preservation of cultural heritage with the progressive realization of women's rights.