Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – The Sabarimala Case

The Sabarimala case was one of the most socially and legally contested rulings in India’s recent history. At issue was the restriction on women of menstruating age (10–50 years) from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The practice was challenged as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a majority ruling, held that the ban violated the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 25. The Court declared that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination and that exclusion based on biology is unconstitutional. This landmark judgment not only reaffirmed the right to equality but also sparked nationwide debates on the intersection of faith, tradition, and constitutional morality.

However, the decision faced strong opposition, with many arguing that it interfered with religious customs. Protests erupted, and review petitions were filed, reflecting the deep divide between constitutional values and societal practices. The matter is still being revisited by larger benches, but the original judgment remains a bold assertion of equality.

At Mullick & Co. Advocates, we believe the Sabarimala case is a powerful example of how courts must safeguard constitutional morality over societal morality. It also highlights the continuing tension between rights and tradition, reminding us that the journey towards equality often encounters resistance.