Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018): The Sabarimala case

The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) case was a groundbreaking decision by the Supreme Court of India, tackling the long-debated issue of women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

What Was the Issue?

Sabarimala temple, a famous pilgrimage site dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, had traditionally barred women between the ages of 10 and 50—essentially those of menstruating age—from entering. The Indian Young Lawyers Association, along with other petitioners, challenged this practice, arguing that it violated fundamental constitutional rights.

Key Questions Before the Court

The case raised several critical legal and social questions:

Did banning women from the temple violate their right to equality (Article 14) and protection against discrimination (Article 15)?
Did it infringe on women’s freedom of religion (Article 25)? Can religious customs override fundamental rights?
Did the temple qualify as an independent religious denomination under Article 26, giving it the autonomy to set its own religious rules?

The Supreme Court’s Verdict (4:1 Majority)

The Ban Was Unconstitutional: The court ruled that excluding women based on age and menstruation violated their fundamental rights to equality (Article 14) and freedom of religion (Article 25).
Not an Essential Religious Practice: The court determined that this exclusion was not an indispensable part of Hinduism and thus did not deserve protection under Article 26, which safeguards religious denominations’ autonomy.
Women Have a Right to Worship: The judgment reinforced that faith is personal, and women should have equal rights to enter the temple and worship.
Justice Indu Malhotra’s Lone Dissent: She took a different stance, arguing that courts should not interfere in religious customs unless they cause serious harm. According to her, faith is a deeply personal matter, and judicial intervention in religious practices should be limited.

Comments

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...

The Legal Catalyst

Search This Blog