Summary
In the challenge to exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from Sabarimala, the Court considered only whether a larger Bench was required. It formulated five questions concerning equality, religious freedom, denominational status and statutory validity, and directed placement before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate larger Bench.
Issues
- Whether the Sabarimala entry dispute raised constitutional and statutory questions requiring a larger Bench.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2–4, Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965The public-entry mandate, denominational proviso and restriction on discriminatory regulations formed the statutory background to questions referred, without a final validity ruling. (¶¶ 2–4, 26)
- Rule 3(b), Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965The custom-based exclusion of women was placed in issue for statutory and constitutional scrutiny by the larger Bench. (¶¶ 5, 26(4–5))
Held
- The hearing and reserved order concerned referral alone. The competing submissions, including the earlier Kerala High Court ruling and the State’s changed stance, were recorded without final adjudication of the entry restriction. (¶ 6–25)
- The referred questions concerned whether biological-factor exclusion violated Articles 14, 15 and 17 despite claims of religious morality; whether it was an essential religious practice; and whether a denominational temple managed by a statutory board and receiving constitutional funding could maintain it consistently with constitutional principles. (¶ 26(1–3))
- The remaining questions concerned whether Rule 3 authorised the age-based exclusion and whether Rule 3(b) exceeded the 1965 Act or violated Part III even if within it. Papers were directed to the Chief Justice for an appropriate larger Bench. The order neither struck down the rule nor finally granted or denied entry. (¶¶ 26(4–5), 27)
Result
Matter referred to the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate larger Bench; the framed constitutional and statutory questions remained for determination.