Twitter
Advertisement

Sabarimala Verdict: Women no children of a lesser God, says Supreme Court

Lifts Sabarimala temple ban on women of menstruating age; bulldozes centuries-old practice, cites right to equality

Latest News
article-main
Pilgrims queue outside the Sabarimala temple to offer prayers to Lord Ayyappa
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

A law enacted in 1965 by the Kerala Government that prevented women of procreative age (10-50 years) from entering Sabarimala temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa was consigned to history by the Supreme Court which held the practice to be against women, depriving them of their valuable right to worship.

Dealing with a PIL filed by the Indian Young Lawyers' Association, a bench of five judges by a 4:1 majority ruled that religious practices that discriminate against women based on their biological or physiological factors amounts to stigmatising them as untouchables and would fail to pass the Constitutional test.

Three concurring verdicts were delivered by Chief Justice Dipak Misra (for himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar), Justice RF Nariman, and Justice DY Chandrachud who gave powerful reasons to discard Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 as unconstitutional. One judge who dissented from the majority was Justice Indu Malhotra.

In the process of declaring the law invalid, CJI Misra spoke of the dualism that persists in religion which on one hand glorified and venerated women as goddesses but on the other hand imposed rigorous sanctions on them. "Such a dualistic approach and an entrenched mindset results in indignity to women and degradation of their status," he said.

All religions are means to connect to the Creator and such a relationship must cross "all socially created artificial barriers" as this cannot be a "negotiated relationship bound by terms and conditions" nor be circumscribed by notions of biological or physiological factors arising out of "rigid socio-cultural attitudes". Both CJI and Justice Khanwilkar stated that exclusionary practices such as the one imposed at the Sabarimala temple have resulted in incongruities between the true essence of religion or faith and its actual practice which permeates from "patriarchal prejudices".

Justice Nariman in his separate judgment discussed how Lord Ayyappa followers cannot be declared a religious denomination as people of all faith visit the temple. "The fundamental right claimed by the thantris and worshippers of the institution, based on custom and usage under Article 25(1) of Constitution, must necessarily yield to the fundamental right of such women, as they are equally entitled to the right to practice religion, which would be meaningless unless they were allowed to enter the temple at Sabarimala to worship the idol of Lord Ayyappa," Justice Nariman said.

The Devasom Board which managed the temple claimed that across India there are 1,000 other Ayyappa temples where all women can visit. But Justice Chandrachud gave the counter to this argument by saying, "Religion cannot become a cover to exclude and to deny the basic right to find fulfilment in worship to women. Nor can a physiological feature associated with a woman provide a constitutional rationale to deny to her the right to worship which is available to others."

He set the bar high by stating that "to treat women as children of a lesser god is to blink at the Constitution itself" and such stigmatisation constituted a form of "untouchability" which the Constitution makers sought to abolish.


Hindu religion has always been all-inclusive and yet over the years,  ‘thekedars’ or contractors have literally divided temples into which caste cannot go to a temple, which sex cannot go. In Hinduism, a woman  is the devi — the shakti. How can you bar the Shakti from going to temple.
Maneka Gandhi, Union Minister & BJP leader 

I  fully agree with the judgment. All through...for decades...women were  discriminated as another human being. God is the same for both man and woman. Their biological differences cannot be a ground for the purpose of refusing entry into the temple.
N Santosh Hegde, Retired Supreme Court Judge

The  Constitution of this country does not discriminate between men and  women. The law has never failed the women. I believe no third entity  should come in between the deity and the devotee. There cannot be a separate temple for men & women. 
Jayamala, (K’taka minister  who had courted controversy in 2006 by claiming she had entered the shrine)

On one side are the beliefs of crores of people. On the other side is the fight for equal rights. The two sides must be brought together. Without  compromising on the importance of Sabarimala, there must be an  atmosphere of consensus.
P S Sreedharan Pillai, BJP’s Kerala president

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement