2018 Supreme(SC) 959

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, R.F. Nariman, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Kerala & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006
Decided On : 28-09-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS (majority view)
The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Exclusionary practices are contrary to constitutional morality.
The notifications dated 21 October 1955 and 27 November 1956 issued by the Devaswom Board, prohibiting the entry of women between the ages of ten and fifty, are ultra vires Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965 and are even otherwise unconstitutional.
The custom or usage of prohibiting women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entering the Sabarimala temple is violative of Article 25(1), and violative of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 made under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. Further, it is also declared that Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 is unconstitutional being violative of Article 25(1) and Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:Per Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)

       (a) Constitution of India – Article 26 – Religious denomination – A collection of individuals having a collective common faith – A common organization adhering to the common faith, and labeled, branded and identified by a distinct name – No identified group or sect called Ayyappans – No such prohibition in other Ayyappa temples – Sabarimala temple held a public religious endowment without any exclusive identified followers of the cult – Devotees of Lord Ayyappa are just Hindus – Not constituting a separate religious denomination – Mere observance of certain practices, even though from a long time, does not make it a distinct religion on that account. (Para 94, 95, 96)

       (1983) 1 SCC 51; [1954] SCR 1005; (2003) 10 SCC 712 – Relied upon

       (b) Travancore - Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 – Section 15 r/w Article 12, Constitution of India – Vestiing all powers of direction, control and supervision over Sabarimala temple in Travancore Devaswom Board – Board thus is a ‘other authority’ – Therefore fundamental rights including those guaranteed under Article 25(1) are enforceable against the Travancore Devaswom Board and other incorporated Devaswoms including the Sabarimala Temple. (Para 97)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 25(1) – Expression “all persons” – Freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess practise and propagate religion – Available to every person including women – Provided, religious practices are as such a part of religion as religious faith or doctrines – Article 25(1) has nothing to do with gender or certain physiological factors, specifically attributable to women. (Para 98, 99, 100)

       (1977) 1 SCC 677 – Relied upon

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 25(1) – Right guaranteed under Article 25(1) – Not only about inter-faith parity but also about intra-faith parity – Avaialble to both men and women of all age groups professing the same religion – Exclusion of women from worshiping in Sabarimala – Held, significantly denudes them of their right to worship. (Para 101)

       AIR 1952 SC 245; (2004) 12 SCC 770 – Relied upon

       (e) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 – Rule 3(b) – Exclusion of entry of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years in Sabarimala temple – Held violative of Article 25(1). (Para 104)

       (f) Constitution of India – Article 25(1) – Morality – Implies Constitutional morality – Cannot be confined s per perception of an individual, a section or religious sect. (Para 106)

       (2014) 9 SCC 1; (2018) 8 SCALE 72; (2018) 10 SCALE 386 – Relied upon

       (g) Constitution of India – Article 25(1) – Guarantee of public morality and health – Entry of women in Sabarimala temple – Will not put public morality and health in peril – Notions of public order, morality and health – Cannot be used as colourable device to restrict the freedom to freely practise religion – Women of the age group of 10 to 50 years cannot be discriminated by denying them their legal right to enter and offer their prayers at the Sabarimala temple – Public morality must yield to constitutional morality. (Para 110, 111)

       (h) Constitution of India – Article 25(1), 26 – Article 25 only protecting freedom to practise rituals, ceremonies, etc. which are integral part of a religion – Followers of Lord Ayyappa – Not forming a religious denomination in terms of Article 26 – They are therefore followers of Hindu religion – Exclusion of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years from Sabarimala temple – Held, not an essential practice under the Hindu religion. (Para 112, 122, 126)

       (1983) 1 SCC 51; (2003) 6 SCC 611; [1954] SCR 1005; AIR 1958 SC 731; (1983) 4 SCC 522; (2002) 8 SCC 106; (2004) 12 SCC 770 – Relied upon

       (1904) AC 515; [1962] Suppl. 2 SCR 496; (1964) 7 SCR 32; (1966) 3 SCR 242 : AIR 1966 SC 1119; (1962) 1 SCR 383; (1958) SCR 895 : 1958 AIR(SC) 55; (1989) 2 SCC 145; (2017) 9 SCC 1; (2008) 3 SCC 1; (1997) 6 SCC 241; (1972) 2 SCC 11; (2016) 2 SCC 725; (1995) 5 SCC 220; AIR 1957 SC 133; (1981) 2 SCC 226 – Referred

       AIR 1993 Kerala 42 – Cited with approval

       (i) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 – Section 2, 3 – Hindu includes a person professing Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion – Person – Must include all genders – Preventing, obstructing or discouraging any Hindu from entering places of public worship prohibited by Section 3 – Ayyappans not being a religious denomination, proviso to section 3 not attracted. (Para 128, 130, 132)

       (j) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 – Section 4(1) and Proviso – Regulations made thereunder – Cannot discriminate against any Hindu on ground of belonging to a particular section or class – Hindu mowen of any age group also constitute a class or section of Hindus. (Para 135)

       (k) Interpretation of statute – Rule making power – Transgression of confines of the statute –Not permissible – Rule inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute is invalid. (Para 137, 140)

       (2012) 7 SCC 683; AIR 1988 SC 876; AIR 2000 SC 1069; (2009) 15 SCC 570; (2006) 4 SCC 517 – Relied upon

       (l) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 – Rule 3(b) – Seeking to protect custom and usage by not allowing women, Hindu women to be specific, to enter a place of public worship at such times during which they are not so allowed to enter by the said custom or usage – Held ultra vires sections 3 and 4, Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965. (Para 143)

       (2017) 10 SCC 689 – Referred

       Per R.F. Nariman, J, (Concurring)

       (m) Constitution of India – Article 25(2)(b) – State authorized to legislate for social welfare and reform – Question whether “even though by so doing it might interfere with religious practices” left open. (Para 10)

       1954 SCR 1005 – Referred

       (n) Constitution of India – Article 25 and 26 – Right to profess, practice, and propagate religion will include all acts done in furtherance of thought, belief, faith, and worship – Religion would mean matters of faith with individuals or communities, based on a system of beliefs or doctrines which conduce to spiritual well-being – Only the essential part of religion is the subject matter of the fundamental right – Any interference by State or non-State actors will be violative of Articles 14, 15(1), 19 and 21; Article 15(2) and 17 respectively – State however, authorized to make law for regulating or restricting secular activity including economic, financial or political activity, which may be associated with religious practice – All Hindu religious institutions of a public character can be thrown open to all classes and sections of Hindus – In contrast to Article 25 rights under Article 26 are not granted to individuals but to religious denominations – Religious denomination or section thereof – Basis of determination – Persons having a common faith, a common organization, and designated by a distinct name as a denomination or section thereof – Dinstinction between believers of a particular religion and denominational worshippers – Hindu believers of the Shaivite and Vaishnavite form of worship are not denominational worshippers but part of the general Hindu religious form of worship – Right under Article 26 is subject to exception of public order, morality, and health – Right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion will be subject to laws made under Article 25(2)(b) throwing open religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus – Religious practices not having the effect of either a complete ban on temple entry of certain persons, or are otherwise not discriminatory may be permitted. (Para 21)

       1952 SCR 849; 1954 SCR 1005; 1954 SCR 1055; 1958 SCR 895; (1962) 1 SCR 383; 1962 Supp. (2) SCR 496; (1964) 1 SCR 561; (1972) 2 SCC 11; (1977) 2 SCR 611; (1983) 1 SCC 51; (1983) 4 SCC 522; (1997) 4 SCC 606; (2002) 8 SCC 106; (2014) 5 SCC 75; (2015) 9 SCC 461; (2016) 2 SCC 725 – Relied upon

       (o) Constitution of India – Article 26 – Sabarimala temple – Whether a religious denomination – Instantly no distinctive name given to Thanthris and worshippers – Worshippers having no common faith – Held, Sabarimala temple does not constitute a religious denomination – Article 25 not attracted. (Para 26, 27)

       (1997) 4 SCC 606; (1962) 1 SCR 383; (1983) 1 SCC 51 – Relied upon

       (p) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 – Section 3 – Custom or usage for keeping out women of the ages of 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple, even if an essential part of the Thanthris’ as well as the worshippers’ faith – Hit by Section 3 as also Article 25(1), constitution of India. (Para 28, 29)

       AIR 1993 Ker 42 – Referred

       (q) Administration of justice – Matter raising grave issues relating to women generally, who happen to be between the ages of 10 to 50, and are not allowed entry into the temple at Sabarimala on the ground of a physiological or biological function – Having far-reaching consequences relating to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India – Cannot be shelved on technical grounds like no woman worshiper coming forward pleading aggrieved or discriminated – Constitutional court has to decide such issue applying constitutional principles on merits. (Para 30)

       (r) Constitution of India – Articles 32 and 226 – Petitions under – Not only merely a pleading, but also evidence in the form of affidavits that are sworn. (Para 31)

       1988 Supp (2) SCR 1050 – Relied upon

       Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. (Concurring)

       (s) Interpretation of Constitution – Preamble – Principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity – Neecessary to acknowledge the complex relationship between the pursuit of justice, the protection of liberty, realisation of equality and the assurance of fraternity – Purpose of the Constitution is to bring about a constitutional transformation. (Para 3, 4)

       (t) Constitution of India – Article 25 – Clause (1) defining features of the right – Entitlement of all persons without exception; recognition of an equal entitlement; and, recognition both of the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion – An individual right – Right however, subject to public order, morality and health and other provisions of Part III of Constitution – Clause (2), clarificatory of clause (1), indicates authority of state to protect or enact laws restricting economic, financial, political or other secular activities whether or not associated with religious practices; social welfare and reform; or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. (Para 6, 7, 8)

       (u) Constitution of India – Article 26 – Right of religious denominations – Subject to public order, morality and health like rights under Article 25. (Para 10)

       (v) Constitution of India – Article 25 and 26 – Morality – Must mean that which is governed by fundamental constitutional principles – Individual dignity cannot be allowed to be subordinate to the morality of the mob – Equality of status and opportunity amongst all citizens is one of the founding precepts of morality – Equality necessarily means equality between sexes and genders – Constitutional morality – Its content must be firmly rooted in fundamental postulates of human liberty, equality, fraternity and dignity – constitutional morality must prevail over religion. (Para 11, 12)

       (w) Words and phrases – “Subject to” – Making a provision subject to another may indicate that the former is controlled by or is subordinate to the other. (Para 13)

       (x) Interpretation of Coinstitution – Constitutional interpretation – Requires bringing a sense of equilibrium, a balance – Thus, read individually and together provisions of the Constitution must exist in contemporaneous accord – Otherwise, synchrony between different parts of the Constitution would not be preserved. (Para 13)

       (y) Constitution of India – Articles 25 and 26 – Article 25(1) makes the nprovision subject to other provisions of Part III – No such limitation in Article 26 – Right under Article 26 is one in the cluster of freedoms – Therefore, the absence of words ‘subject to’ in Article 26 neither gives the right conferred upon religious denominations a priority overriding other freedoms nor does it allow the freedom of a religious denomination to exist in an isolated silo. (Para 13, 15)

       (1970) 1 SCC 248; (1978) 1 SCC 248 – Relied upon

       1950 SCR 88 – Referred

       (z) Constitution of India – Article 25 and 15 – Freedom to believe, freedom to be a person of faith and freedom of worship, are attributes of human liberty – Religion therefore cannot become a cover to exclude and to deny the basic right to find fulfilment in worship to women – Nor can a physiological feature associated with a woman be a ground to deny to her the right to worship which is available to others – Neither can the Constitution countenance such an exclusion nor can a free society accept it under the veneer of religious beliefs. (Para 15)

       (aa) Constitution of India – Article 26 – Essential religious practices – ‘Essentially religious’ and ‘essential to religion’ – Determination of essentiality of the practice within jurisdiction of Court – Distinction between ‘superstitious beliefs’ and religious practice – Distinction between ‘matters of religion’ as protected under Article 26(b) and ‘activities associated with religion’, though not intimately connected with it – Views of a religious denomination, though required to be considered, are not determinative of its essentiality – An optional practice cannot be said to be ‘essential’ to a religion. (Para 32, 35, 37, 39, 47, 48)

       (1958) SCR 895; (1959) SCR 629; (1962) 1 SCR 383; 1962 Supp (2) SCR 496; (1964) 1 SCR 561; (1966) 3 SCR 242; (1983) 4 SCC 522; (1997) 4 SCC 606; (2002) 8 SCC 106; (2004) 12 SCC 770; (2016) 2 SCC 725; (2017) 9 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       1993 Ker 42; 1954 SCR 1005; [1943] HCA 12; 1954 SCR 1055 – Referred

       (ab) Constitution of India – Article 25 – Practice of excluding women between the ages of ten and fifty from undertaking the pilgrimage and praying at the Sabarimala temple – Whether an essential part of religion – Kerala High court noticing several instances of women being allowed to pray at the Sabarimala temple – Held, denial of constitutional protection to the exclusionary practice will not result in a fundamental change in the character of the religion – Such exclusionary practice, held, does not constitute an essential religious practice – Dignity of women emanating from Article 15 and founded in Article 21 requires exercise of religious freedom – Exclusion of women from worship is incompatible with dignity, destructive of liberty and a denial of the equality of all human beings. (Para 49, 51, 52, 53, 54)

       (2018) 8 SCALE 72; Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 of 2016 – Relied upon

       AIR 1993 Ker 42 – Not correct law

       (ac) Constitution of India – Article 32 and 226 – PIL raising grave issues – issues need to to be answered on merits – Challenge to maintainability and plea of remanding the matter for trial rejected. (Para 51)

       (2016) 2 SCC 725 – Relied upon

       (ad) Constitution of India – Article 25 – Exclusion of women from worshiping at Sabarimala temple – On assumption that presence of wwomen would cause deviation from celibacy and austerity observed by the followers – Stigmatizing and stereotyping them as being weak and lesser human beings – Not a constitutionally sustainable argument. (Para 55)

       (ae) Constitution of India – Articles 25 and 26 – Rights of ‘religious denominations’ under Article 26 – Must yield to Article 25(2)(b) in case of conflict. (Para 59)

       (af) Constitution of India – Articles 26 – Conditions precedent for recognizing denominational temple – A collection of individuals having a common faith; common organisation; and designation by a distinctive name – Caste, community and social status do not bring into being a religious denomination. (Para 62, 63, 64)

       (1958) SCR 895; 1954 SCR 1005; (1983) 1 SCC 51; (1983) 4 SCC 522; (1995) 4 SCC 646; (2003) 10 SCC 712 – Relied upon

       (ag) Constitution of India – Article 26 – Religious denomination – Identity of doctrines, creeds and tenets imperative – Exclusion of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years from Sabarimala temple as part of a common set of religious beliefs held by the worshipers shown not to be a uniform practice or tenet down the ages – Adherence to a ‘common faith’ – Ayyappa worshipers being persons from all religions, Ayyapppans cannot be said to have a common faith so as to constitute a religious denomination. (Para 67, 68, 69)

       1962 Supp (2) SCR 496 – Relied upon

       (1904) AC 515 – Referred

       (ah) Constitution of India – Article 15(2)(b), 17, 21 and 25(2)(b) – Article 17 is a guarantee to preserve human dignity and against stigmatization and exclusion of individuals and groups on the basis of social hierarchism – Untouchability – Not defined – Abolished in any form by Article 17 striking at the foundation of the notions about “purity and pollution” – Section 3, 4 and 7, Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 – Women are constitutionaly entitled to have their biological processes free from social and religious practices enforcing segregation and exclusion – Exclusion of women between the age groups of ten and fifty, based on their menstrual status, from entering the temple in Sabarimala held unconstitutional – Article 25 held subject to Article 17. (Para 75, 76, 78, 81, 82)

       1995 Supp (4) SCC 469; (2016) 2 SCC 725; (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       AIR 1958 Mys 84; AIR 1993 Raj 177 – Cited with approval

       (2017) 2 SCC 432 – Referred

       (ai) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act 1965 – Section 2 – ‘Hindu’ – Includes section or class – Use of word ‘includes’ makes everybody practicing the faith a Hindu, women constituting a section or class included. (Para 85)

       (1961) 3 SCR 592; (1971) 3 SCC 550; (1983) 4 SCC 202; (1991) 3 SCC 617 – Relied upon

       (1982) All. L.J. 607 – Cited with approval

       (aj) Interpretation of statute – Long title – Is a permissible aid to construction. (Paraa 85)

       (2001) 4 SCC 139 – Relied upon

       (ak) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act 1965 – Section 3 – Overrides any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law – Throwing open all places of public worship, open to Hindus or to any section or class of Hindus generally, have to be open to all sections and classes of Hindus, women included – Proviso to section 3 exempting a temple founded for benefit of any religious denomination or section thereof from operation of section 3 – In view of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa not constituting a religious denomination and Sabarimala temple not being a denominational temple, Proviso to section 3 has no application – Notifications of the Travancore Devaswom Board dated 21 October 1955 and 27 November 1956 totally prohibiting entry of women between the ages of ten and fifty held ultra vires of section 3. (Para 86, 87)

       (al) Interpreetation of statute – Delegated legislation – Rule or regulation framed in exercise of rule making power conferred by a statute – Cannot be contrary to the enabling law. (Para 89)

       (2000) 5 SCC 451; (1984) 4 SCC 27 – Relied upon

       (am) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965 – Rule 3 r/w sextion 4 and 3, Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act 1965 – Rules framed u/s 4 of the Act – Section conferring power on competent autghority to make Rules for maintenance of order and decorum and for observance of rites and ceremonies in places of public worship; prohibiting discrimination against any Hindu in any manner whatsoever on the ground that he or she belongs to a particular section or class – Section 3, having an overridinbg effect, throwing open all Hindu places of worship to all Hindus – Rule 3(b) enabling execlusion of women “at such time during which they are not… allowed to enter a place of public worship” if not allowed by custom or usage – Rule 3 acknowledging, recognising and enforcing a custom or usage to exclude women, held, ultra vires. (Para 89, 90)

       (an) Interpretation of statute – Use of word ‘includes’ – Enlarges the meaning of the words or phrases used making the definition extensive. (Pata 96)

       (1961) 3 SCR 592; (1971) 3 SCC 550; (1983) 4 SCC 202; (1991) 3 SCC 617 – Relied upon

       (ao) Constitution of India – Article 13 – Laws in force – Includes customs and personal law – Hence these must pass judicial/constitutional scrutiny – Exclusion of women from Sabarimala temple, held, hit by Article 13. (Para 99, 100, 102)

       (1970) 1 SCC 248; (1978) 1 SCC 248; (1979) 1 SCC 380; (2017) 10 SCC 1; (1964) 7 SCR 756; (2017) 9 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       AIR 1952 Bom 84 – Not correct law

       (ap) Constitution of India – Articles 25 and 26 – Person – Whether includes deity/idols – Statutory laws grant limited rights under juristic person – That does not mean that the deity necessarily has constitutional rights – A deity, though a juristic person, is not a ‘person’ for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution. (Para 105, 106)

       (1925) 27 Bom LR 1064; (1969) 1 SCC 555; 1954 SCR 1005; (1996) 9 SCC 548 – Relied upon

       Per Indu Malhotra, J. (Dissenting)

       (aq) Constitutional law – In a secular polity, issues which are matters of deep religious faith and sentiment, must not ordinarily be interfered with by Courts – Courts have been in the past asked to identify the limits of State action under Articles 25 and 26 on the administration, control and management of the affairs of temples, including the appointment of archakas. (Para 6)

       (2016) 2 SCC 725 – Referred

       (ar) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Locus standi – Not a mere technicality but an essential requirement to maintain a challenge for impugning practises of any religious sect, or denomination – In matters of religion and religious practices – Article 14 can be invoked only by persons who are similarly situated, that is, belonging to the same faith, creed, or sect – Courts normally do not delve into issues of religious practises, especially in the absence of an aggrieved person from that particular religious faith, or sect – So far, precedents have arisen against State action, and not been rendered in a PIL – Writ petition challenging practices at Sabarimala temple by non-worshipers of Ayyappa held not maintainable. (Para 7)

       (1955) 1 SCR 1284 : AIR 1955 SC 367; 1954 SCR 1005; 1958 SCR 895 : AIR 1958 SC 255; 1959 Supp (2) SCR 563 : AIR 1959 SC 942; 1962 Supp (2) SCR 496 : AIR 1962 SC 853; (1962) 1 SCR 383 : AIR 1961 SC 1402; (1986) 3 SCC 615; – Relied upon

       (as) Contitution of India – Article 14 – Applicability in religious matters – Application under Article 14 would require Court to delineate rationality of religious beliefs or practices, outside the ken of Courts – It is not for the courts to determine which of the religious practises of a faith are to be struck down, except if they are pernicious, oppressive, or a social evil – Challenge to exclusion of women of age group ten to fifty from Sabaruimala temple on ground of Article 14 rejected. (Para 8)

       (at) Contitution of India – Article 15 – Contention that Sabarimala temple is ‘place of public resort’ under Article 15(2)(b) rejected. (Para 9)

       (au) Constitution of India – Article 25 – Protection to personal religious belief or practice under Article 15(1) – Personal views of judges irrelevant. (Para 10)

       (av) Constitution of India – Article 25(2)(b), an enabling provision, not capable of application without reference to an actual legislation – Article 25(2) permits a State made law and not judicial intervention – Section 3 of Act, 1965 framed in pursuance of Article 25(2)(b) providing for throwing open of Hindu places of public worship – Proviso to section 3 carving out an exception to applicability of section 3 – Rule 3(b) of Rules, 1965 giving effect to proviso of section 3 ad protecting custom or usage – Any interference with belief and practices to worship Lord Ayyappa would be in cinflict with Article 25(1). (Para 10)

       (1986) 3 SCC 615; (1962) 1 SCR 383; 1954 SCR 1055 : AIR 1954 SC 388; (2017) 9 SCC 1; (2017) 9 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       [1943] HCA 12; (1964) 1 SCR 561; [2005] UKHL 15; 450 U.S. 707 (1981); 455 U.S. 252 (1982); 490 U.S. 680 (1989); 494 U.S. 872 (1990); 508 U.S. 520 (1993) – Referred

        (aw) Constitution of India – Articles 25 and 26 – Constutional morality and religion – Both provisions subject to public order, morality and health – In addition Article 25 is subject to other provisions of Part III whereas Article 26 is not – Constitutional Court is duty bound to harmonise the rights of all persons, religious denominations or sects thereof, to practise their religion according to their beliefs and practises. (Para 11)

       (2012) 10 SCC 603; (2016) 7 SCC 221; (1975) 1 SCC 11 – Relied upon

       (ax) Constitution of India – Article 26 – Religious denomination – Worshipers of Ayyappa have a common faith, beliefs and practices based on the belief that Lord Ayyappa has manifested himself in the form of a ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’ – The common faith followed by worshipers is ‘Ayyappan Dharma’ – All male devotees are called ‘Ayyappans’; all female devotees below the age of 10 years and above the age of 50 years, are called ‘Malikapurnams’ – A pilgrim on their maiden trip is called a ‘Kanni Ayyappan’ – Devotees are referred to as ‘Ayyappaswamis’ – Common practices include observance of 41-day ‘Vratham’ by Ayyappans observing abstinence and seclusion from the women-folk – It is because the Lord has manifested himself in the form of a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ the women between the ages of 10 to 50 years, are not permitted to enter the temple – Travancore Devaswom Board managing the temple is not ‘State’ or ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution – Held, worshipers of Ayyappa constitute a religious denomintation. (Para 12)

       1954 SCR 1005; (1983) 1 SCC 51; 1962 Supp (2) SCR 496 : AIR 1962 SC 853 – Relied upon

       (ay) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Whether Sabarimala temple constitutes a religious denomination – A mixed question of fact and law – Can be determined more appropriately by a civil court on evidence. (Para 12)

       (1976) 1 SCC 292 – Relied upon

       (az) Constitution of India – Article 25 – ‘Essential practises’ test – Acts done in pursuance of a religion – Practises and beliefs which are considered to be integral by the religious community are to be regarded as “essential” and protected under Article 25 – Judgment of Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran hodling restriction of women in age group of 10-50 from woershiping at Sabarimala valid, not challenged by anybody attaining fianlity – S. Mahendran being findings in rem, principle of res judicata would apply – Such findings of fact ought not to be re-opened in a petition filed under Article 32. (Para 13)

       1954 SCR 1005; (1954) SCR 1055 : AIR 1954 SC 388; (1962) 1 SCR 383 : AIR 1961 SC 1402; (1964) 1 SCR 561 at 582 : AIR 1963 SC 1638; (1986) 3 SCC 615; (2014) 5 SCC 75; (1962) 1 SCR 574 : AIR 1961 SC 1457 – Relied upon

       AIR 1993 Ker 42 – Cited with approval

       67 CLR 116; 604 P.2d 1068 (1979) – Referred

       (ba) Constitution of India – Article 17 – Untouchability – Article 17 pertains to untouchability based on caste prejudice – Never understood to apply to women as a class – Restriction on the entry of women in the notified age group in Sabarimala Temple is based on the unique characteristic of the deity, and not founded on any social exclusion – Held, article 17 not attracted. (Para 14)

       1958 SCR 895 : AIR 1958 SC 255 – Relied upon

       (bb) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965 – Rule 3(b) r/w section 3, Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act 1965 – Provisions of section 3 thowing open palces of Hindu worship to all Hindus – Held, would be subject to the right of a religious denomination or section to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion – Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b), Constitution of India – Rule 3(b), a statutory recognition of a pre-existing custom and usage being followed by this Temple, held, within the ambit of the proviso to section 3 – Validity of Proviso to section 3 not challenged – Rule 3(b) held not ultra vires the Act. (Para 15)

       Facts of the case:

       The three-Judge Bench in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2017) 10 SCC 689 has reffered this writ petition to the Constitution Bench.

       The instant writ petition seeks issuance of directions against the Government of Kerala, Devaswom Board of Travancore, Chief Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and the District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta to ensure entry of female devotees between the age group of 10 to 50 years to the Lord Ayyappa 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 the 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 the safety of women pilgrims.

       Finding of the Court (majority view):

       Exclusion of women in the age group of 10-50 from worshipping at Sabarimala temple is unconstitutional.

       Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 is ultra vires Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

       Result: Writ petition allowed.