Sriram Singh Rattan
Grants entry of women of all ages into the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala
The Supreme Court has given green signal to the entry of women of all ages into the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 majority verdict, said banning the entry of women into the shrine is gender discrimination and hence this practice violates rights of Hindu women.
The Verdict
The apex court noted that religion is basically a way to link life with divinity. Though, male Justices RF Nariman and Y Chandrachud concurred with the CJI and Justice AM Khanwilkar, the lone female on the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra gave a nonconformist verdict. The court pronounced its verdict on a number of pleas challenging the ban on the entry of women of menstrual age in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple saying law and society are tasked to act as levellers.
CJI Dipak Misra said devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination and patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion. He said devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate denomination. He also said that the practice of exclusion of women of 10-50 age group cannot be regarded as essential religious practice and Kerala law denies rights to women on the ground of physiological reasons.
Justice Nariman said the Sabarimala temple custom barring women of 10-50 age is not backed by Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution.The custom of barring women violates Article 25 (Clause 1) and Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (authorisation of entry) Rules, 1965 and hence is struck down by Justice Nariman.
Justice DY Chandrachud said religion cannot be used as cover to deny rights of worship to women and it is also against human dignity. He said the prohibition on women is due to non-religious reasons and it is a grim shadow of discrimination going on for centuries. Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not form separate religious denominations, Justice Chandrachud said and added that any custom or religious practice that violates the dignity of women by denying them entry due to her physiology is unconstitutional.
He said the popular notion about morality can be offensive to the dignity of others and exclusion of women because they menstruate is absolutely unconstitutional.
Justice Chandrachud held that exclusion of women is a breach of right to liberty, dignity and equality and said banning women of a particular age group is not essential practice of religion.
On the contrary, Justice Malhotra opined that notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religion. Since our country has diverse religious practices, constitutional morality would allow anyone to profess a religion they believe. She stressed that the courts should not ordinarily interfere in matters of deep religious belief. She held that the doctrine of equality cannot override fundamental right to worship under Article 25.
Background
The Bench was delivering their Judgment in a 2006 PIL filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging the centuries-old tradition of Sabrimala Temple which restricts entry of women of menstruating age inside the temple. The hearing was privy to a debate on the ‘essential religious practices’ doctrine and the principle of constitutional morality.
Justice Chandrachud noted that the essentiality of religious practices judgement given by a five judge bench in the Shirur Mutt case of 1954 let the jury to be wrongly guided by theological aspects and not on the lines of constitution. Hence, he finally said that religious practices should be guided by constitutionality and rationalism and not by archaic belief and authoritarianism.
