Sabarimala Review: Writ Petition Summary (All Kerala Brahmins Association )

What does the petitioner seek?

The petitioner prays for the Court to-

1. Allow the Review Petition filed against the majority judgement in Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, and restore and dispose of the writ petition. 

Grounds

The petition in the impugned judgement is not maintainable

The review petitioners note that the writ petition filed in Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors was filed by 5 women based on 2 newspaper articles. The Kerala Brahmana Sabha argues that the writ petitioners are not devotees of Ayyappa. On the other hand, the Kerala Brahmana Sabha as well as other petitioners represent women devotees of Sabarimala. The petitioners contend that since the writ petitioners do not represent the devotees, the writ petition is not maintainable. 

The petitioners contend that the Court has not heard the plea of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa, and is in contravention of the principles of natural justice, specifically, that all parties to a dispute must be heard. Kerala Brahmana Sabha noted that the devotees believe the Sabarimala deity to be a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’

Erroneous to Consider that Sabarimala Devotees do not form a ‘Religious Denomination’

The petitioners argue that due to the fact that it is a spiritual organisation with a common set of practices, it falls under the ambit of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Further, the inclusion of Ayyappa devotees under the Hindu Religious Denomination is not sustainable in the eyes of the law, since the Sabarimala Temple is based on Tantra Philosophy. 

Based on this, the review petitioners argue that the examination of whether the practice of exclusion is essential to the Hindu religion is inherently erroneous.  

Restriction is imposed on the deity, and not on women

The petitioners argue that to construe the practice as gender discriminatory is incorrect. This is because the regulation imposed is based on the vow of celibacy adopted by the deity and not because of the impurity of women. The petitioners argue that the judgement ignores that there are several regulations in other temples with female deities that impose restrictions on men. 

Based on this, the petitioners state that Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 have to be interpreted to include men and women, in respect for Temple Practices in Kerala