The Supreme Court is likely to deliver its verdict Friday on whether women aged between 10 and 50 can be barred from entering Kerala’s Sabarimala temple on the grounds that its presiding deity Lord Ayyappa is in the form of “naishtika brahmacharya” (perpetual celibate).
The Supreme Court is likely to deliver its verdict Friday on whether women aged between 10 and 50 can be barred from entering Kerala’s Sabarimala temple on the grounds that its presiding deity Lord Ayyappa is in the form of “naishtika brahmacharya” (perpetual celibate).
A five-member constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra began hearing the case on July 17, making it clear that the ban to the over 800-year old hilltop shrine in Kerala’s Pattanamthitta district would be tested on “constitutional ethos”. It also asked the temple board to establish that the restriction was an “essential and integral” part of religious faith.
During the hearing of the case, the constitution bench, which also comprises justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, observed that the practice was based on the “patriarchal” belief that a man’s dominant status in the society makes him capable of austerity.
Acknowledging the presiding deity has rights including the right to privacy with regard to certain rites observed at the shrine, CJI Misra had said, “But whether the right of privacy is the same as reflected in the judgment that recognizes privacy as a fundamental right will have to be examined.”
Lawyer Indira Jaising, who appeared for the petitioners, the Indian Young Lawyers Association, argued the temple rules on entry of women were discriminatory as they were based on sex alone. Citing the Constitution, she contended that any custom or practice which violates its Articles 14 and 15 pertaining to equality should be struck down.
The court had reserved its order in the case on August 1.
The apex court had on October 13 last year referred the issue to a constitution bench after framing five “significant” questions including whether the practice of banning entry of women into the temple amounted to discrimination and violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Another issue was whether the practice of excluding such women constitutes an “essential religious practice” under Article 25 of the Constitution and whether a religious institution can assert a claim in that regard under the umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion.
The constitution bench was to also determine whether the Ayyappa temple has a denominational character and if so, if was permissible for a religious denomination managed by a statutory board and financed the state “to indulge in such practice violating constitutional principles/morality embedded in Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a) (equal access to justice) and 51-A(e) (seeking renouncing of practices against dignity of women)”.
The Kerala government which had flip-flopped on the issue now favours entry of women to the temple.
Pilgrimage to Sabarimala situated in Western Ghats mountain ranges is unique in many ways. A devotee has to observe 41 days’ fast abstaining from all worldly pleasures followed by a rigorous trek through forests. Lord Ayyappa’s favourite disciple is a Muslim saint ‘Vavar Swami’ and devotees will have to worship first at his mosque before proceeding to the hilltop.
Women aged between 10 and 50 are allowed only till Pamba, the base camp before a 5-km arduous trek to the hill shrine begins. Women cops are employed in Pambha in large numbers to screen devotees. If police become suspicious, women devotees will have to furnish proof to verify their age.
The temple management had earlier told the apex court that the ban on entry of women of the particular age was because they cannot maintain “purity” on account of menstruation.
The restriction on women was first challenged in Kerala High Court which ruled in 1991 that it was part of an age-old tradition and not discriminatory under the Constitution.
A five-member constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra began hearing the case on July 17, making it clear that the ban to the over 800-year old hilltop shrine in Kerala’s Pattanamthitta district would be tested on “constitutional ethos”. It also asked the temple board to establish that the restriction was an “essential and integral” part of religious faith.
During the hearing of the case, the constitution bench, which also comprises justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, observed that the practice was based on the “patriarchal” belief that a man’s dominant status in the society makes him capable of austerity.
Acknowledging the presiding deity has rights including the right to privacy with regard to certain rites observed at the shrine, CJI Misra had said, “But whether the right of privacy is the same as reflected in the judgment that recognizes privacy as a fundamental right will have to be examined.”
Lawyer Indira Jaising, who appeared for the petitioners, the Indian Young Lawyers Association, argued the temple rules on entry of women were discriminatory as they were based on sex alone. Citing the Constitution, she contended that any custom or practice which violates its Articles 14 and 15 pertaining to equality should be struck down.
The court had reserved its order in the case on August 1.
The apex court had on October 13 last year referred the issue to a constitution bench after framing five “significant” questions including whether the practice of banning entry of women into the temple amounted to discrimination and violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Another issue was whether the practice of excluding such women constitutes an “essential religious practice” under Article 25 of the Constitution and whether a religious institution can assert a claim in that regard under the umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion.
The constitution bench was to also determine whether the Ayyappa temple has a denominational character and if so, if was permissible for a religious denomination managed by a statutory board and financed the state “to indulge in such practice violating constitutional principles/morality embedded in Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a) (equal access to justice) and 51-A(e) (seeking renouncing of practices against dignity of women)”.
The Kerala government which had flip-flopped on the issue now favours entry of women to the temple.
Pilgrimage to Sabarimala situated in Western Ghats mountain ranges is unique in many ways. A devotee has to observe 41 days’ fast abstaining from all worldly pleasures followed by a rigorous trek through forests. Lord Ayyappa’s favourite disciple is a Muslim saint ‘Vavar Swami’ and devotees will have to worship first at his mosque before proceeding to the hilltop.
Women aged between 10 and 50 are allowed only till Pamba, the base camp before a 5-km arduous trek to the hill shrine begins. Women cops are employed in Pambha in large numbers to screen devotees. If police become suspicious, women devotees will have to furnish proof to verify their age.
The temple management had earlier told the apex court that the ban on entry of women of the particular age was because they cannot maintain “purity” on account of menstruation.
The restriction on women was first challenged in Kerala High Court which ruled in 1991 that it was part of an age-old tradition and not discriminatory under the Constitution.