International Journal of Social Science Research (IJSSR)

Revisiting the Sabarimala Debate: A Socio-Legal Evaluation of Justice Indu Malhotra’s Dissent

The Sabarimala judgment sparked a controversial debate in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. In a country like India, where religious faith is deeply rooted in people's lives, this case highlighted the complex relationship between religious freedom, gender equality, and constitutional morality. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Supreme Court, by a majority of 4:1, held that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 and 50 from the Sabarimala Temple was unconstitutional. It allowed women of all age groups to enter the temple. Activists celebrated the judgment as a hallmark step towards equality. However, the followers of Lord Ayyappa, including many women, were disappointed, as they viewed it as a direct intervention in their right to religious autonomy and faith. Justice Indu Malhotra's dissenting opinion was particularly relevant in a country like India. She presented a contrasting vision of judicial restraint, religious autonomy, and the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. This paper critically examines Justice Malhotra's dissent and evaluates its contribution to the discourse on religious liberty and constitutional adjudication. The paper analyses the dissent and questions the extent of judicial intervention in matters of faith and the importance of respecting sincerely held religious beliefs. Further, it explains the history of the temple, the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa, and the right of a religious denomination to preserve its essential practices. It examines whether a practice that does not violate public order, morality, or health should be subjected to judicial intervention at the instance of activists who have no association with the temple or its faith. The paper concludes that Justice Indu Malhotra's dissent offers an important constitutional perspective on religious autonomy and judicial restraint, emphasizing that sincerely held religious beliefs and denominational practices deserve constitutional protection unless they violate the constitutional limitations of public order, morality, or health.