Sabarimala exclusion and equal temple access: exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice and statutory barriers were invalid.

Devotees of Lord Ayyappa were held not to constitute a separate religious denomination because no distinct common faith, organisation, or exclusive tenets were shown, and the temple remained public in character. The exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from Sabarimala was not established as an essential religious practice protected by Articles 25 and 26, since tradition alone could not override dignity, liberty, equality, and non-discrimination. The exclusionary custom was treated as unconstitutional, and Rule 3(b) and the Board notifications were found ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 because the Act requires equal access to public Hindu temples.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution; (ii) Whether the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entry and worship at Sabarimala is an essential religious practice protected by Articles 25 and 26; (iii) Whether the exclusionary practice amounts to untouchability or unconstitutional discrimination and whether Rule 3(b) and the Board notifications are ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

Issue (i): Whether the devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution.

Analysis: A religious denomination requires a common faith, a common organisation, and a distinctive name. The plurality of worshippers at Sabarimala, the absence of evidence of a separate religious sect with exclusive tenets, and the public character of the temple did not establish a denomination distinct from the Hindu fold. Mere observance of long-standing practices was insufficient to create a separate denominational identity.

Conclusion: The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a religious denomination.

Issue (ii): Whether the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entry and worship at Sabarimala is an essential religious practice protected by Articles 25 and 26.

Analysis: The protection of religion extends to practice, but only to practices that are shown to be essential and integral to the faith. The material relied upon did not establish that exclusion of women was essential to the religion or necessary to preserve the deity's celibate character. Constitutional scrutiny cannot be avoided by characterising a practice as traditional when it derogates from dignity, liberty, and equality. Religious freedom under Article 25 is available to all persons equally and cannot be denied on the basis of sex or physiological characteristics.

Conclusion: The exclusion of women is not an essential religious practice and cannot be protected under Articles 25 or 26.

Issue (iii): Whether the exclusionary practice amounts to untouchability or unconstitutional discrimination and whether Rule 3(b) and the Board notifications are ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.

Analysis: Notions of purity and pollution cannot justify exclusion of women from public worship. The constitutional guarantee against untouchability is broad enough to condemn social exclusion founded on stigma, and the right to worship cannot be curtailed by discriminatory customs. Section 3 of the 1965 Act throws open public temples to all sections and classes of Hindus, and Section 4 forbids discriminatory regulations. Rule 3(b), to the extent it enforces a custom that excludes women, conflicts with the Act and the Board notifications similarly offend the statutory mandate.

Conclusion: The exclusionary practice is unconstitutional, the notifications are ultra vires Section 3 of the 1965 Act, and Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenged exclusion of women from Sabarimala could not be sustained in constitutional law, and the statutory and administrative measures enforcing that exclusion were invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: A religious practice that excludes a class of persons from public worship must yield where it is neither shown to be essential to religion nor consistent with the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, and any delegated rule or administrative notification contrary to the parent statute's mandate of equal access is ultra vires.

---