Sabarimala Issue - Constitutional Morality vs Religious Freedom: a Constitutional Law Debate

A debate competition on the Sabarimala issue arising from the landmark case Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala was conducted on 20.04.2026 at the RRU Puducherry Campus Auditorium. The event was organized for the Master of Criminology first-year students as part of the Internal Assessment for the subject Constitutional Law and Human Rights, conducted by Sandra Sunil, Teaching cum Research Officer (Law).

The debate focused on the constitutional and social issues surrounding the restriction on women's entry into the Sabarimala Temple and the Supreme Court's subsequent judgment. The objective of the programme was to encourage students to critically analyse contemporary constitutional issues involving religious freedom, gender equality, constitutional morality, and judicial intervention in matters of faith.

The competition was judged by Nethaji Subhash, Assistant Professor of Criminology, and Nina Oviya, Teaching cum Research Officer, Criminology. The audience included students of the PG Diploma in Cyber Security and Digital Forensics, as well as interested students from various batches and faculties across the campus.

The programme was conducted in multiple rounds following a structured format. In the first and main round, all participants presented their assigned sub-topics either in favour of or against the judgment. The topics covered various dimensions of the issue, including constitutional morality, essential religious practices, freedom of religion, discrimination under Article 15, judicial interference in religious matters, customs and traditions versus fundamental rights, and the conflict between Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. The participants presented their views with confidence, clarity, and strong constitutional reasoning.

Following the presentations, the judges and audience members actively engaged with the contestants through questions and discussions. The participants responded effectively to the questions raised, reflecting their preparation and understanding of the issue. This interactive session added depth and academic value to the programme and ensured active audience involvement throughout the event.

The debate then moved to the rebuttal and cross-questioning rounds, where participants critically responded to the opposing side's arguments. These rounds encouraged analytical thinking, spontaneity, and constructive engagement while maintaining decorum and professionalism despite the sensitivity of the topic. The event concluded with final statements from both sides summarizing their arguments and perspectives.

The judges appreciated the participants for their preparation, confidence, articulation, and balanced understanding of a socially and constitutionally significant issue. The programme successfully created a platform for academic discussion, critical constitutional analysis, and meaningful student participation, making it an enriching learning experience for both the participants and the audience.