Sabarimala Temple – Background

The Supreme Court Verdict on Sabarimala Women Entry Issue in 2018

Sabarimala Temple – Views of Those Who Support Women Entry

• Preventing women from entering the places of worship goes against Articles 14, 15, 19, and 25 of the Indian constitution, which deal with the right to equality, the right against discrimination based on gender, freedom of movement and freedom of religion.
• The excluded women claim that barring them access to the inner sanctum of the shrine violated their fundamental right under Article 25(1) to freely practice their religion.
• Right to manage its own religious affairs under Article 26(1) cannot “override the right to practice religion itself”, as Article 26 cannot be seen to overrule the right to practice one’s religion as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
• Restricting the entry of women into places of worship is one of the ways of imposing patriarchy. Often the restrictions are based on patriarchy and not religion.
• Banning entry to the temple is discriminatory since it subverts the idea of everyone being equal to God.
• From the abolition of Sati to temple entry proclamation to the abolition of untouchability, reforms have been judicial or legislative.
• In April 2016, the Shani Shingnapur temple, which had barred women from entering its core area for over 400 years, allowed women to pray inside the temple following the court’s orders.

Sabarimala Temple – Views of Those Who Oppose Women Entry

• Women are banned from entering the temples to preserve ‘purity’. The reason cited in Sabarimala case is that women during their menstruation period are not supposed to enter places of worship.
• Referring to the presiding deity Lord Ayyappa as a Naishtika Bramhachari, many point out that it is the celibate nature of the deity that forms the basis of the practice and not misogyny.
• Sabarimala was a separate religious cult with its own rules.
• Article 15 of the Constitution does not apply to religious institutions. Article 15(2) provides citizens with the right to access to places such as hotels, shops and so on but nowhere does it mention public temples.
• Some of those who oppose women entry argue that their actions are protected by Article 25(1).
• Article 25(2) pertains to only secular aspects and it is only pertaining to social issues, not gender or religious-based issues.

Can the state/court determine the validity of religious claims?

• These issues highlight the tension between religious tradition and the reformist impulse of the Constitution.
• Over the years, courts have intervened in religious matters backed by Article 25(2) of the constitution.
• The courts have put in place what is known as the “essential practices” test, used to decide a variety of cases. The court has used this test to decide which religious practices are eligible for constitutional protection. And to judge the extent of independence that can be enjoyed by religious denominations.
• This test, developed by the Supreme Court in the 1950s and 60, has been criticized as allowing secular courts to determine the validity of religious claims.

Some Important Supreme Court Important Judgments on the Essense of Religion

• In the Ananda Marga case(2004), the Supreme Court held that the public performance of the Tandava dance was not an essential part of the religion of the Ananda Marga sect, even though it had been specifically set down as such in their holy book.
• In Shirur Mutt case, the Supreme Court observed that a “religious denomination or organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision”. At the same time, the court also said that the state can legitimately regulate religious practices when they “run counter to public order, health and morality” and when they are “economic, commercial or political in their character though they are associated with religious practices”.

Protests after Sabarimala Verdict of the Supreme Court

Views of Leaders and Parties on the Issue

Stern action will be taken against anyone who prevents devotees from going to Sabarimala. We will go by what the Supreme Court says – Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan (CPM)

The LDF Government and Travancore Devasom Board (TDB) should seek a review petition against the Sabarimala verdict. It now seems that the verdict was based on wrong arguments and divergent views taken by the LDF Government and TDB before the Supreme Court. I concur to the views that rationality shouldn’t overtopple faith. –Ramesh Chennithala, Leader of Opposition (Congress)

Activists should not come to prove a point – Kerala Devaswom Board minister Kadakampally Surendran (CPM)

“We were helpless. The head priest said that he will close the temple and that would have been a ritualistic disaster. We could have removed the protesters but the state government had ordered us not to. We will continue to provide security to devotees” – Sreejith, Kerala Police IG

Update (02-01-2019) – “Two women, in their forties, entered Sabarimala and performed darshan”, confirms Kerala Chief Minister Pinaarayi Vijayan

In summary: