The paper aims to provide an insight into the famous and revolutionary Sabarimala Judgement - Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. The State of Kerala and Ors.2 The paper throws light on the background of the case and closely analyses the judgement so pronounced and its consequences. Since the practices of the temple were seen as exclusionary in nature, the implications of a judgement so grave have serious consequences on the immediate category of people directly affected and the

more »

... at large. The primary issues addressed in the case; whether or not the said practice is discriminatory and so a violation of Article 17, and whether or not the practice violates the right to equality by lacking an intelligible differential and a reasonable nexus (pertaining to Article 14) have been further deconstructed to paint a better understanding of the interpretation of the Constitution of India.Furthermore, an attempt has been made to establish the judiciary's primary objective, whether it is to strike a balance between the conflict of liberty, equality, public interest and affected groups of people has been fulfilled in this judgement or not. The main task of the judgement was to figure out whether the exclusionary practice is essential for the religion so as to deem it to be violative of the fundamental right to religion, as granted to the citizens of the country by the Constitution. One of the striking features of this judgement is the dissenting opinion of Justice Indu Malhotra, who, reasoning through constitutional morality: the harmonisation of fundamental rights of every individual citizen, religious denomination to practise their faith in accordance with the tenets of their religion irrespective of it being rational or logical has concluded that the practice is neither exclusionary, nor discriminatory in nature. The paper delves into this dissenting opinion, and proposes a possible approach to balancing public interests and rights of the affected categories.