S. Mahendran v Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board (1991)

This is the Kerala High Court decision that upheld the bar on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala temple, and turned it into a court direction binding on the Travancore Devaswom Board and the State of Kerala. It is the starting point of the Sabarimala litigation and is cited in Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (2018).

Remember that it is a High Court judgment. It applies Supreme Court tests on "matters of religion" and "religious denomination" (Shirur Mutt, Venkataramana Devaru, Tilkayat), but it is not itself a Supreme Court ruling.

For a legal-language paper the case is also a study in how a court finds and defines a usage: it takes dictionary and law-lexicon meanings of the word and then decides on oral evidence from the temple's Thanthri and others.

S. Mahendran sent a petition to Paripoornan J complaining that young women were trekking the Sabari hills and worshipping at the Sabarimala shrine, contrary to the temple's customs, and that the wives of VIPs received special treatment. He pointed to the first rice-feeding ceremony of the granddaughter of the former Devaswom Commissioner, Smt. S. Chandrika, held at the temple with women of the family present.

The Court converted the letter into an original petition under Article 226 as public interest litigation (O.P. 9015/1990). A senior advocate, P. Balagangadhara Menon, assisted as amicus curiae and appeared for the petitioner. The respondents were the Travancore Devaswom Board, Smt. Chandrika and the Chief Secretary of Kerala. The Indian Federation of Women Lawyers (Kerala Branch) and the Kerala Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi were allowed to intervene. The Court summoned and examined the Thanthri of the temple, other Thanthrimukhyas and other witnesses.

The Board's position was that women of 10 to 50 were barred only during Mandalam, Makaravilakku and Vishu, not during the monthly poojas, and that it would abide by the opinion of the Thanthri.

The Court framed three questions (para 12):

1. Whether women of the age group 10 to 50 can be permitted to enter the Sabarimala temple at any period of the year or during any of its festivals or poojas.
2. Whether denial of entry to that class of women is discrimination violating Articles 15, 25 and 26.
3. Whether the Court can direct the Devaswom Board and the Government of Kerala to restrict the entry of such women.

The law on matters of religion

Relying on Shirur Mutt, Venkataramana Devaru and Tilkayat, the Court summarised: "a religious denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion." Whether a practice is an integral part of religion "has to be decided on the basis of evidence." It added that the right under Article 25 "is subject to the freedom to manage religious affairs guaranteed under Article 26(b) of the Constitution."

Spiritual questions are for the Thanthri

Quoting the Travancore State Manual, the Court treated spiritual questions as ones for the Thanthris: "Since the spiritual questions are to be decided by the Thanthris, we summoned and examined the Thanthri of Sabarimala temple and other Thanthrimukhyas of Kerala". Under s. 31 of the 1950 Act, the Board "can arrange worship in the temples under their control only in accordance with the prevailing usages."

The usage was proved

The Court defined "usage" from Webster's Dictionary and Venkataramaiya's Law Lexicon, noting that a usage need not be proved to have existed for any length of time. On the evidence of the Thanthri, the Secretary of the Ayyappa Seva Sangham and a member of the Pandalam royal family, it held: "The usage of young women not being permitted to trek Sabarimala on pilgrimage and to offer worship at the temple has therefore been established."

The reasons for the usage

Two reasons were accepted. First, pilgrims must observe a 41-day penance (Vratham), which the Court accepted women of 10 to 50 could not observe "due to physiological reasons". Second, and "more fundamental", the deity is in the form of a Naisthik Brahmachari: "it is therefore believed that young women should not offer worship in the temple so that even the slightest deviation from celibacy and austerity observed by the deity is not caused by the presence of such women."

The Court also relied on a 1985 Devaprasnam report and held that "The Board has a duty to implement the astrological findings and prediction on Devaprasnam."

Not limited to festival seasons

The Court rejected the Board's position that the bar applied only in the pilgrimage seasons: "In short, woman after menarche up to menopause are not entitled to enter the temple and offer prayers there at any time of the year."

Conclusions (para 44)

"(1) The restriction imposed on women aged above 10 and below 50 from trekking the holy hills of Sabarimala and offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine is in accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial."

"(2) Such restriction imposed by the Devaswom Board is not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India."

(3) Nor did it violate the 1965 Authorisation of Entry Act, because "the prohibition is only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a class."

Directions (para 45)

The Board was directed not to permit women above 10 and below 50 to trek the hills or worship at the shrine "during any period of the year", and the Government of Kerala was directed "to render all necessary assistance inclusive of police" so that the direction is complied with. No order was made as to costs.

A restriction on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala temple, proved by evidence to be a usage of the temple and grounded in the nature of the deity and the pilgrimage, is a matter of religion that the Devaswom Board must follow under s. 31 of the 1950 Act. It does not violate Articles 15, 25 or 26, and it does not breach the 1965 Entry Act, because it excludes women of an age group, not a section or class of Hindus.

• Direct question: Trace the Sabarimala litigation and the tests courts apply to "essential religious practice". Start with Mahendran as the Kerala High Court's decision (1991), state its three conclusions, then move to the Supreme Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association (2018).
• Legal language: use para 37 as an example of how a court defines an ordinary word ("usage") by reference to a dictionary and a law lexicon before applying it to facts.
• PIL point: this case began as a letter to a judge, converted into an Article 226 petition, with a senior advocate as amicus. Use it as an example of epistolary jurisdiction.
• Always say "Kerala High Court" when you cite it. Calling it a Supreme Court decision is a serious error.