The Sabarimala Verdict and its Implications
The Supreme Court's September 2018 verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala opened the Sabarimala temple to women of all ages, causing nationwide reactions. Some praised it as transformative, while others saw it as disrespecting religious beliefs.
Supreme Court's Majority Ruling
- The ruling was delivered by a 4:1 majority, with opinions from Justices Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Rohinton Nariman, and D.Y. Chandrachud.
- The verdict stated:
- Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form a separate religious denomination.
- The ban on women aged 10-50 from entering the temple violated their freedom of religion.
- Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, was unconstitutional.
Dissenting Opinion
- Justice Indu Malhotra's dissent emphasized:
- Fundamental rights need harmonizing in a secular polity.
- The exclusion of women was part of an "essential religious practice".
The Essential Religious Practices Test
The Court often acts as a theological judge, determining if a practice is essential to a religion. This approach is criticized for being incompatible with secularism.
Justice Chandrachud's Anti-Exclusion Test
- Proposes that religious groups define their doctrines but not in ways that impair dignity or access to basic goods.
- Focuses on constitutional principles rather than theological ones, assessing the compatibility of religious practices with equal treatment and protection.
Broader Implications
The upcoming hearings by the nine-judge Bench will impact not only the Sabarimala case but also other religious controversies, such as the Dawoodi Bohra community's rights and Parsi women's religious practices.
Conclusion
The anti-exclusion test aligns with the Constitution's transformative promise, ensuring that religious autonomy does not infringe on individual dignity and equal moral membership in civic life.
