SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. – Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors. – Respondent(s)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006
Decided On : 13-10-2017
AIR 1993 Kerala 42; 1954 SCR 1005; (1962) 1 SCR 383; 1966 3 SCR 242 : AIR 1966 SC 1119; (1997) 4 SCC 606; (1996) 9 SCC 548; AIR 2016 SC 209; (1956) SCR 756; (1981) 2 SCC 226; (1952) SCR 849; (2016) 2 SCC 725; (2014) 9 SCC 1; (2014) 5 SCC 438; (2005) 8 SCC 534; (1972) 2 SCC 788; (1989) 2 SCC 574; (2011) 8 SCC 1; (2006) 8 SCC 212; (2007) 3 SCC 720; (2008) 5 SCC 287; (1986) 2 SCC 249; AIR 1964 SC 150; (1983) 1 SCC 51; (1964) 1 SCR 561 : AIR 1963 SC 1638; AIR 1954 SC 388 : 1954 SCR 155; (2014) 5 SCC 75 – Referred
Facts of the case:
In this public interest litigation the petitioners have prayed for issue of appropriate writ or direction commanding the Government of Kerala, Dewaswom Board of Travancore, Chief Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and the District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta and their officers to ensure entry of female devotees between the age group of 10 to 50 at the Lord Ayappa Temple at Sabarimala (Kerala) which has been denied to them on the basis of certain custom and usage; to declare Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 51A(e) of the Constitution of India and further to pass directions for safety of women pilgrims. A prayer has also been made for laying guidelines in matters of general inequality related to religious practices in places of worship.
Finding of the Court:
The matter should be placed before a larger Bench.
Result: Matter referred to larger Bench.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, CJI.
In this public interest litigation preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issue of appropriate writ or direction commanding the Government of Kerala, Dewaswom Board of Travancore, Chief Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and the District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta and their officers to ensure entry of female devotees between the age group of 10 to 50 at the Lord Ayappa Temple at Sabarimala (Kerala) which has been denied to them on the basis of certain custom and usage; to declare Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 (for short, “the 1965 Rules”) framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 (for brevity, “the 1965 Act”) as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 51A(e) of the Constitution of India and further to pass directions for safety of women pilgrims. That apart, a prayer has also been made for laying guidelines in matters of general inequality related to religious practices in places of worship.
2. The preamble to 1965 Act lays down that the Act has been enacted to make better provisions for entry of all classes and sections of Hindu into places of public worship. Section 2 is the dictionary clause. It reads as follows:-
“Section 2. Definitions:-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) “Hindu” includes a person professing the Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion;
(b) “place of public worship” means a place, by whatever name known or to whomsoever belonging, which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or is used generally by, Hindus or any section or class thereof, for the performance of any religious service or for offering prayers therein, and includes all ands and subsidiary shrines, mutts, devasthanams, namaskara mandapams and nalambalams appurtenant or attached to any such place, and also any sacred tanks, wells, springs and water courses the waters of which are worshipped, or are used for bathing or for worship, but does not include a “sreekoil”;
(c) “section or class” includes any division, sub-division, caste, sub-caste, sect or denomination whatsoever.”
3. Section 3 that provides for places of public worship to be open to all sections and classes of Hindus reads thus:-
“Section 3. Places of public worship to be open to all section and classes of Hindus:- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law or any decree or order of court, every place of public worship which is open to Hindus generally or to any section or class thereof, shall be open to all sections and classes of Hindus; and no Hindu of whatsoever section or class shall, in any manner, be prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering such place of public worship, or from worshipping or offering prayers thereat, or performing any religious service therein, in the like manner and to the like extent as any other Hindu of whatsoever section or class may enter, worship, pray or perform:
Provided that in the case of a public of public worship which is a temple founded for the benefit of any religious denomination or section thereof, the provisions of this section, shall be subject to the right of that religious denomination or section as the case may be, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.”
4. Section 4 deals with the power to make regulations. The said provision being significant is reproduced below:-
“Section 4. Power to make regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum and the due performance of rites and ceremonies in places of public worship:- (1) The trustee or any other person in charge of any place or public worship shall have power, subject to the control of the competent authority and any rules which may be made by that authority, to make regulations fo
Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali
Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya
Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of U.P.
A.S. Naryana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P.
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Sri Radhakanta Deb v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa
Nar Hari v. Badri Nath Temple Committee
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and others v. State of T.N.
Manoj Narula v. Union of India
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat
Bennet Coleman & Co. v. Union of India
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India
Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad
Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana
Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa
Tilkayat Shri Gvindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.