Case Comment: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. V. State Of Kerala & Ors. (2019 11 SCC 1)
- IJLLR Journal
- Dec 22, 2025
- 2 min read
Oindrila Sett, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata
ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2018), popularly known as the Sabarimala case, represents a significant moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence concerning the interface between religious freedom, gender equality, and constitutional morality. The case arose from a writ petition filed in 2006 by a non-governmental organisation challenging the long-standing prohibition on the entry of women between the ages of ten and fifty into the Sabarimala Temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa in Kerala. The exclusion was justified as a religious custom linked to the celibate nature of the deity and defended as an essential religious practice.
By a majority of four to one, the Supreme Court invalidated the practice, holding that it violated the fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and freedom of religion under Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Constitution. Drawing upon feminist jurisprudence and the transformative vision of the Constitution, the Court emphasised that practices grounded in biological distinctions and notions of ritual purity cannot override constitutional guarantees. The judgment foregrounded constitutional morality as a guiding principle, requiring customs and traditions to conform to the values of individual autonomy and substantive equality.
The decision also triggered widespread public opposition and national debate, with critics characterising it as an instance of judicial overreach and an encroachment upon religious autonomy. This commentary situates the controversy within India’s distinctive model of secularism, which does not mandate strict separation between religion and State, but instead demands a principled distance that balances religious freedom, celebratory neutrality, and reformatory justice. The paper argues that while the verdict marks a decisive advance for gender justice, it simultaneously exposes enduring tensions surrounding judicial intervention in religious matters within a pluralistic constitutional democracy.
