Supreme Court of India allows entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala temple

NEW DELHI: In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court of India on Friday lifted a ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 from entering the famous Sabarimala temple in Kerala, holding this centuries-old Hindu religious practice is illegal and unconstitutional.nnWomen activists hailed the judgement that paved the way for entry of female devotees of all ages as a victory for gender equality while Union Women and Child Development Minister Maneka Gandhi said it would make Hinduism even more inclusive. The temple barred women of a “menstruating age”– defined as between the ages of 10 and 50–from enteringnnThe Chief Justice Dipak Misra-headed Constitution bench in a 4-1 verdict held that the existing ban is gender discrimination and the practice violates rights of Hindu womennn”Restrictions put by Sabarimala temple can’t be held as essential religious practice,” said Justice Misra, adding religion is a way of life basically to link life with divinitynnWhile Justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud concurred with the CJI and Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice Indu Malhotra gave a dissenting verdictnnJustice Malhotra was of the view that it is not for courts to determine which religious practices are to be struck down except in issues of social evil like ‘Sati’nnSabarimala is a prominent Hindu temple which attracts tens of millions of pilgrims every year. The hill top shrine remains open only for a little over four months in a year and the approach is through a forested area that involves an arduous 5-km trek from the Pampa river base camp.nnDescribing the verdict as “unfortunate”, Rahul Easwar, the president of the Ayyappa Dharma Sena, said the organisation would file a review petition against the judgementnnEaswar, grandson of a former Sabarimala priest the late Kandararu Maheswararu, said, “We will defintely go ahead with the fightnnUntil October 16, the Sabarimala temple is closed. So, we have time.”nnKerala Religious Trusts Minister Kadakampally Surendran described the verdict as “historic”, while the shrine’s head priest Tantri Kandararu Rajeevaru said though the verdict was “disappointing”, the management accepted it. Kerala’s Left Front government had favoured the entry of women of all age groups into the templennThe Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which administers the hill shrine of Lord Ayyappa, said it was bound to implement the judgementnnMariam Dhawale, General Secretary of the The All India Democratic Women’s Association, called the verdict another step that would help in bringing equalitynnThe court passed four sets of separate judgements on a clutch of pleas challenging ban on the entry of women of menstrual age in Sabrimala saying law and society are tasked with the task to act as levellersnnThe CJI said devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination and patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotionnnHe said devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate denominationnnThe CJI said practice of exclusion of women of 10-50 age group cannot be regarded as essential religious practice and the temple rule denies rights to women on grounds of physiological reasonsnnJustice Nariman said the Sabarimala temple custom barring women of 10-50 age is not backed by Article 25 and 26 of the ConstitutionnnHe said the custom of barring women is violative of Article 25 (Clause 1) and Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (authorisation of entry) Rules, 1965 is liable to be struck downnnJustice Chandrachud said religion cannot be used as cover to deny rights of worship to women and it is also against human dignitynnHe said prohibition on women is due to non-religious reasons and it is a grim shadow of discrimination going on for centuriesnnDevotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form separate religious denominations, Justice Chandrachud said and added that any custom or religious practice if violates dignity of women by denying them entry due to her physiology is unconstitutionalnnHe said the popular notion about morality can be offensive to dignity of others and exclusion of women because she menstruates is utterly unconstitutionalnnJustice Chandrachud held that exclusion of women is violative of right to liberty, dignity and equality and said banning women of a particular age group is not essential practice of religionnnIn her dissenting verdict, Justice Malhotra said issues which have deep religious connotation should not be tinkered with to maintain secular atmosphere in the countrynnShe said right to equality conflicts with right to worship of devotees of Lord AyyappannShe said the issue in this case not limited to Sabarimala only. It will have far reaching implications for other places of worshipsnnJustice Malhotra said notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religion and India has diverse religious practices and constitutional morality would allow anyone to profess a religion they believennShe said equality doctrine cannot override fundamental right to worship under Article 25.nnSource: Press Trust of India