SC Verdict on Women's Entry into Sabarimala Temple

Why in news?

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgement, allowed women, irrespective of their age, to enter Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. Click here to know more on the case.

What is the ruling?

• In a 4-1 majority, the court struck down provisions of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
• The Rules banned women between the age of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple, a practice in place for centuries.
• The judgment came over a clutch of petitions challenging the ban, which was upheld by the Kerala High Court.

What is the SC's rationale?

• Religious Rights - The Constitution protects religious freedom in two ways:

1. protects an individual’s right to profess, practise and propagate a religion
2. assures protection to every religious denomination to manage its own affairs

• The Sabarimala temple case represented a conflict between -

1. the group rights of the temple authorities in enforcing the presiding deity’s strict celibate status
2. the individual rights of women in 10-50 age group to offer worship there

• The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) had argued that they form a denomination and hence be allowed to make rules.
• The court instead ruled that Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
• It held that prohibition on women is not an essential part of Hindu religion, and hence the court can intervene.
• The judgement establishes the principle that individual freedom prevails over professed group rights, even in matters of religion.
• Social notions - The judgement relooks at the stigmatisation of women devotees based on a medieval view of menstruation as symbolising impurity and pollution.
• So much so, exclusion based on the notion of impurity is a form of untouchability.
• Also, the argument that women of menstruating age could not observe the 41-day period of abstinence failed to make sense.
• The court noted that any rule based on segregation of women pertaining to biological characteristics is unconstitutional.

What was the dissenting Judge's remark?

• Justice Malhotra was the lone woman on the bench who had a dissenting view.
• She noted that what constitutes essential religious practice is for the religious community to decide and not the court.
• Notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religions.
• Balance needs to be struck between religious beliefs on one hand and Constitutional principles of non-discrimination and equality on the other.
• She also stated that the present judgment would not be limited to Sabarimala but will have wide ramifications.
• So issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily interfered into by the Court.

Why is Sabarimala case unique?

• Ayyappan of Sabarimala is worshipped as a celibate god.
• Pilgrims are expected to practice celibacy and abstinence during the 41-day vratam (pious observances).
• Sabarimala stands out among Kerala’s temples spaces for its accommodation of all devotees irrespective of religion and caste.
• It has thus helped the shrine administrators to evade the rights test - in this case, that of women of a particular age group.
• The unique and site-specific tradition also kept it outside the purview of the historic temple entry protests.
• The Travancore Devaswom Board is thus likely to file a review petition after securing support from other religious heads.

Source: Indian Express, The Hindu