INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSN. versus STATE OF KERALA 561 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.V. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 561, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
897
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSN. v. STATE OF KERALA
the ages of 10 to 55 years as a custom and practise integral to the
sanctity of the Temple, and having the force of law under Article 13(3)(a)
of the Constitution. The High Court in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary,
Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram & Ors. (supra)
noted that this practise of restricting the entry of women is admitted to
have been prevalent since the past several centuries. These practises
are protected by the proviso to Section 3 of the 1965 Act which is given
effect to by Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules.
15.6. The contention of the Petitioners that Rule 3(b) is ultra
vires Section 3 of the 1965 Act, fails to take into consideration the proviso
to Section 3 of the 1965 Act. Section 3 applies to all places of public
worship, whereas the proviso applies to temples founded for the benefit
of any religious denomination or sect thereof. Hence, the contentions of
the Petitioners that Rule 3(b) is ultravires Section 3 of the 1965 Act is
rejected.
16. The summary of the aforesaid analysis is as follows:
(i) The Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained for want
of standing. The grievances raised are non-justiciable at the
behest of the Petitioners and Intervenors involved herein.
(ii) The equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 does not
override the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 25 to
every individual to freely profess, practise and propagate their
faith, in accordance with
the tenets of their religion.
(iii) Constitutional Morality in a secular polity would imply the
harmonisation of the Fundamental Rights,which include the right
of every individual, religious denomination, or sect, to practise
their faith and belief in accordance with the tenets of their
religion, irrespective of whether the practise is rational or logical.
(iv) The Respondents and the Intervenors have made out a plausible
case that the Ayyappans or worshippers of the Sabarimala
Temple satisfy the requirements of being a religious
denomination, or sect thereof, which is entitled to the protection
provided by Article 26. This is a mixed question of fact and law
which ought to be decided before a competent court of civil
jurisdiction.
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
(v) The limited restriction on the entry of women during the notified
age-group does notfall within the purview of Article 17 of the Constitution.
(vi) Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is not ultra vires Section 3 of the
1965 Act, since the proviso carves out an exception in the case of public
worship in a temple for the benefit of any religious denomination or sect
thereof, to manage their affairs in matters of religion.
17. In light of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the Writ Petition
cannot be entertained on the grounds enumerated hereinabove.
It is ordered accordingly.
Nidhi Jain
        Writ Petition allowed.