It is in the rarest of rare cases that the Supreme Court is open to reconsidering its verdict. The decision of the apex court to review its September 28 verdict allowing entry of women of all ages into the sacred Sabarimala temple, falls into this category.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Forty-nine entities, including individuals and organisations, had filed a review petition, questioning the verdict on temple entry. Their main argument is that rationality cannot be a yardstick to assess whether a religious practice or belief is integral to the faith of a community or a group. For centuries, women of menstruating ages have been barred from entering the shrine. In its verdict, the court had allowed all women to enter the temple premises.

This Supreme Court reconsideration is a belated recognition that traditions, particularly religious ones, have to be taken into account and that in a blanket interpretation of religion, particularly one not guided by a religious book, there are nuances to be kept in mind before a final decision is delivered. It is rooted in the nuance that progressives can push society to modernity, but it cannot claim that their beliefs are better than the devotees of Ayyappa.

In other words, it is not for law to prescribe that one set of beliefs and the practices followed are better than the other. If a section of society believes that women of all ages should be allowed and another section says it should not, it is for society to address the issue and not law.

It would not be unreasonable to suggest that Indian society is capable of inducing changes and can evolve, as it has, even without legal sanction, particularly in cases that involve faith and tradition. Clearly, in this case, the conflict is between devotees and non-devotees. In the case of a temple, the devotees view should overrule non-devotees.

It would be instructive to remember that not all religious traditions may measure up to the progressive canons of 21st century public behaviour. For instance, how can anyone fault a women from observing a 24-hour fast karva chauth fast on the grounds that it is unhealthy?

As long as there is no force involved and as long as it is done out of one's religious volition, surely it cannot be construed as an illegal act. Re-looking the verdict also becomes significant because a fairly broad line separates the religious thought and views of a believer from a non-believer.

Taking all sensitivities into account, the court will hear the review petitions in the case on January 22. Very significantly, the apex court will hold hearing in an open court, another rare exception not allowed outside of death penalties in criminal cases.

There is little doubt that after the review, more clarity will emerge after another round, or more, of hearings. It makes eminent sense to widen the scope and horizon of public debate, which the court has permitted, given the sensitivity of the matter.