Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
E522750
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that struck down the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5486364 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala Context triple: [Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, notableWork, Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala]
-
A.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
B.
Gujarat State Legal Services Authority
The Gujarat State Legal Services Authority is a statutory body in the Indian state of Gujarat that provides free legal aid and promotes access to justice, particularly for weaker and marginalized sections of society.
-
C.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
D.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
E.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision
The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision was a controversial 1976 Indian Supreme Court ruling during the Emergency that held citizens had no locus to challenge unlawful detentions when fundamental rights were suspended, later widely criticized and effectively overruled.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala Target entity description: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that struck down the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
A.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
B.
Gujarat State Legal Services Authority
The Gujarat State Legal Services Authority is a statutory body in the Indian state of Gujarat that provides free legal aid and promotes access to justice, particularly for weaker and marginalized sections of society.
-
C.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
D.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
E.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision
The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision was a controversial 1976 Indian Supreme Court ruling during the Emergency that held citizens had no locus to challenge unlawful detentions when fundamental rights were suspended, later widely criticized and effectively overruled.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (56)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Supreme Court of India judgment
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ public interest litigation ⓘ |
| ageGroupConcerned | women between the ages of 10 and 50 ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
anti-discrimination law
ⓘ
freedom of religion ⓘ gender equality ⓘ |
| benchType | Constitution Bench ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeOnBench | Dipak Misra NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation | (2019) 11 SCC 1 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionDiscussed |
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Article 15 of the Constitution of India ⓘ Article 17 of the Constitution of India NERFINISHED ⓘ Article 25 of the Constitution of India ⓘ Article 26 of the Constitution of India NERFINISHED ⓘ Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| dateOfDecision | 28 September 2018 ⓘ |
| dissent | 1 ⓘ |
| dissentingJudge | Indu Malhotra NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| foundToViolate |
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Article 15 of the Constitution of India ⓘ Article 17 of the Constitution of India ⓘ Article 25 of the Constitution of India ⓘ |
| held |
ban on entry of women of menstruating age into Sabarimala temple is unconstitutional
ⓘ
exclusion of women between ages 10 and 50 from Sabarimala violates fundamental rights ⓘ |
| impact |
allowed women of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple
ⓘ
triggered nationwide debate on gender equality in religious practices ⓘ |
| issue | ban on entry of women of menstruating age into Sabarimala temple ⓘ |
| judge |
A. M. Khanwilkar
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
D. Y. Chandrachud NERFINISHED ⓘ Dipak Misra NERFINISHED ⓘ Indu Malhotra NERFINISHED ⓘ R. F. Nariman NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple |
constitutional morality prevails over social morality
ⓘ
test of essential religious practices must be applied in light of constitutional morality ⓘ |
| locationOfTemple | Pathanamthitta district, Kerala, India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| majority | 4 ⓘ |
| majorityJudges |
A. M. Khanwilkar
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
D. Y. Chandrachud NERFINISHED ⓘ Dipak Misra NERFINISHED ⓘ R. F. Nariman NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| numberOfJudges | 5 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Indian Young Lawyers Association NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| popularName | Sabarimala temple entry case ⓘ |
| ratio |
customs and usages cannot override fundamental rights
ⓘ
devotees of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala do not constitute a separate religious denomination ⓘ exclusion of women based on biological factors is discriminatory ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of Kerala
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Travancore Devaswom Board NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | entry of women into Sabarimala temple ⓘ |
| subsequentDevelopment |
issues were referred to a larger bench in 2019
ⓘ
review petitions were filed challenging the 2018 judgment ⓘ |
| templeInvolved | Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Temple NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| yearOfDecision | 2018 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala Description of subject: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that struck down the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.