Section 3 in Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965
3. Places of public worship to be open to all sections and classes of Hindus.
- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law or any decree or order of court, every place of public worship which is open to Hindu generally or to any section or class thereof, shall be open to all section and classes of Hindus; and no Hindu of whatsoever section or class shall, in any manner, be prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering such place of public worship, or from worshipping or offering prayers thereat, or performing any religious service therein, in the like manner and to the like extent as any other Hindu of whatsoever section or class may so enter, worship, pray or perform:Provided that in the case of a place of public worship which is a temple founded for the benefit of any religious denomination or section thereof, the provisions of this section shall be subject to the right of that religious denomination or section, as the case may be, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.[Sabarimala Temple Entry - Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v State of Kerala 2018. The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Sabarimala Temple's custom of prohibiting women in their 'menstruating years' from entering. The majority ruled that Sabarimala’s exclusion of women violated the fundamental rights of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years. They further held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa were not a separate religious denomination. Justices Misra, Khanwilkar and Chandrachud held that the custom was not an essential religious practice. While the Judges in the majority did not explicitly comment on whether the custom was against the right to equality under article 14, they stated that the practice was discriminatory as per Article 15. Justice Chandrachud stated that the right against untouchability is vast, and includes any kind of social exclusion based on notions of ‘purity’. Further, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 (KHPW Act) which allowed the custom of prohibition of women was held to be unconstitutional. The majority decision of the Court struck down the impugned Rule 3(b) as it prevented women from exercising their right to religious freedom under Article 25(1), and did not warrant any exemption as an essential religious practice of a separate religious denomination. In her dissent, Justice Indu Malhotra observed that in a secular polity, ‘It is not for the courts to determine which of these practises of a faith are to be struck down, except if they are pernicious, oppressive, or a social evil, like Sati.’ (https:indiankanoon.org/doc/163639357/, https:privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/indian-young-lawyers-association-and-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-and-ors)]
