Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    What Is The Background of This Issue?

    Uploaded by

    Krishnan
    The document discusses the issue of women's entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, India. It provides background on the restrictions and the arguments from both sides. The Supreme Court verdict struck down the restrictions with a 4-1 majority, establishing that individual religious freedom prevails over group rights. The lone dissenting judge argued that religious matters should be decided by religious communities rather than courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    What Is The Background of This Issue?

    Uploaded by

    Krishnan
    45 views3 pages
    The document discusses the issue of women's entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, India. It provides background on the restrictions and the arguments from both sides. The Supreme Court verdict struck down the restrictions with a 4-1 majority, establishing that individual religious freedom prevails over group rights. The lone dissenting judge argued that religious matters should be decided by religious communities rather than courts.

    Original Description:

    Legality of Sabarimala issue

    Original Title

    sabarimala

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the issue of women's entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, India. It provides background on the restrictions and the arguments from both sides. The Supreme Court verdict struck down the restrictions with a 4-1 majority, establishing that individual religious freedom prevails over group rights. The lone dissenting judge argued that religious matters should be decided by religious communities rather than courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    45 views3 pages

    What Is The Background of This Issue?

    Uploaded by

    Krishnan
    The document discusses the issue of women's entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, India. It provides background on the restrictions and the arguments from both sides. The Supreme Court verdict struck down the restrictions with a 4-1 majority, establishing that individual religious freedom prevails over group rights. The lone dissenting judge argued that religious matters should be decided by religious communities rather than courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    You are on page 1of 3

    What is the background of this issue?

    • The Sabarimala temple restricts menstruating women (between the age of 10 and 50 years)
    from taking the pilgrimage to Sabarimala. The restrictions find its source in the legend
    that the temple deity, Swami Ayyappa, is a ‘NaishtikaBrahmachari’ (celibate).
    • Also, the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965,
    prohibits women from entering the Sabarimala temple premises.
    • Kerala High Court in 1991 ordered in favor of the restriction by mentioning that the
    restriction was in place throughout the history and not discriminatory to the
    constitution.
    • In 2006, Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged the ban in Supreme Court. However,
    the Kerala government appealed to the Supreme Court that the beliefs and customs of
    devotees cannot be altered by means of a judicial process and the priests’ opinion is
    final. Hence the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger constitutional bench.
    What are the arguments against women’s entry into the temple?
    • Allowing menstruating women to enter the temple would affect the deity’s celibacy and
    austerity which is the unique nature of Swami Ayyappa.
    • Temple, managed by trusts, are public places. The Sabarimala trust’s representatives claim
    that it has its own traditions and customs that have to be respected, just like other public
    places which have their own rules.
    • Article 25 (2) of the constitution which provides access to public Hindu religious institutions
    for all classes and sections of the society can be applied only to societal reforms, not
    religious matters which are covered under Article 26 (b) of the Constitution. Article 26
    (b) provides right to every religious group to manage their own religious affairs.
    • The Guwahati High Court in Ritu Prasad Sharma Vs State of Assam (2015), ruled that
    religious customs which are protected under Article 25 and 26 are immune from
    challenge under other provisions of Part III of the constitution.
    • Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965
    prohibits women from entering the Sabarimala temple premises.

    What are the arguments in favor of women’s entry into the temple?
    • When all the people are equal in God’s eyes as well as the Constitution, there is no reason
    why women are only barred from entering certain temples.
    • Indian constitution under Article 25 provides an individual the freedom to choose his/her
    religion. Hence praying in a temple or mosque or church or at home must be the
    individual’s choice.
    • The Constitution guarantees right to liberty (Article 21) and religious freedom to the
    individual.
    • There are countless Ayyappa temples in India where such rules don’t apply and there are no
    restrictions in praying. The deity is also being worshipped by women of this ages in
    their houses. Then why only Sabarimala temple?
    • The argument that menstruation would pollute the temple premises is unacceptable since
    there is nothing “unclean” or “impure” about a menstruating woman.
    • Discriminating based on the biological factor exclusive to the female gender is
    unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality), Article 15
    (discrimination abolition) and Article 17 (Untouchability abolition).
    • Barring women from entering the temple mainly due to their womanhood and the biological
    features is derogatory to women which the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
    under Article 51A (e) seeks to renounce.
    • The temple’s trust gets its funds from the Consolidated Fund = It is a public place of worship
    and not a private temple.
    • Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. Hence its practice cannot be dictated only and
    narrowly by religious pundits and tantric priests.
    • Religious traditions must remain relevant to changing societal structures and relationships.
    Hence it needs reforms from within.

    Verdict:
    In a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Kerala Hindu Places of
    Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 and allowed women, irrespective of their
    age, to enter Sabarimala temple and worship the deity.
    Rationale behind the verdict:
    Religious rights
    • The constitution protects religious freedom in two ways – (1) Article 25 – Protects an
    individual’s right to profess, practice and propagate a religion, (2) Article 26 – ensures
    protection to every religious denomination to manage its own affairs.
    • The Sabarimala case represented a conflict between the individual rights of women in the
    10-50 age group to worship and the group rights of the temple authorities in enforcing
    the presiding deity’s strict celibate status.
    • The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) claimed that they form a denomination and hence
    be permitted to make own rules. However, the court declared that Ayyappa devotees
    do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
    • The court ruled that prohibition on women is not an essential part of Hindu religion = Courts
    can intervene.
    • The verdict establishes the principle that individual freedom prevails over professed group
    rights, even in religious matters.
    Social notions
    • The judgement relooks at the stigmatization of women devotees based on a medieval
    perspective that the menstruation symbolizes impurity and pollution.
    • It declares that the exclusion on the basis of impurity is a form of untouchability.
    • Further, the argument that women of menstruating age could not observe the 41-day period
    of abstinence failed to make any sense.
    • Therefore, the court declared that any rule that segregates women due to their biological
    characteristics is unconstitutional.
    What is the dissenting Judge’s opinion?
    • The dissenting remark was given by a lone woman judge, Justice Malhotra.
    • She opined that religious matters should be decided by the religious communities, rather than
    the court. It is because notions of rationality cannot be inserted into religious matters.
    • And the balance needs to be struck between religious beliefs on one hand and constitutional
    principles of equality and non-discrimination on the other hand.
    • She also warned that the present verdict would not be restricted to Sabarimala but will have
    wide ramifications.
    • Therefore, issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily referred to by the
    court.

    You might also like