Sabarimala board may back women entry
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Travancore Devaswom Board (TTB), which administers the hilltop shrine in Sabarimala, on Saturday decided to seek the Supreme Court’s permission to file a fresh affidavit in the case related to allowing the entry of women into the shrine.
In an emergency meet convened late in the evening, most of the board members said temple customs must change with times, indicating that the board will tow the government line on allowing women to enter the temple, board members familiar with the matter said.
IN AN EMERGENCY MEET, BOARD MEMBERS SAID TEMPLE CUSTOMS MUST CHANGE WITH TIMES, HINTING THAT THEY MAY OPEN SHRINE DOORS FOR WOMEN
“We have sought legal opinion. We will move an additional affidavit on Tuesday after obtaining the court permission,” said a senior official of the TDB on the condition of anonymity.
When the CPI(M)-led state government supported the move to open temple doors for women, the TDB took a different position in the apex court on Thursday, saying women in 10-50 age group were barred because they “can’t observe the 41-day fast”. The TDB’s position has left many redfaced with state devaswom minister Kadakampally Surendran questioning the board’s stance.
The TDB’s position has left many red-faced and state Devasom minister Kadakampally Surendran had questioned its stance.
“What the counsel told the court is the decision of the former members of the board. The TDB is yet to take decision on it,” said TDB president A Padmakumar.
He said the board will also consult Pandalam royal family (erstwhile custodian of the temple) and tantri (supreme priest) family before finalising its stand. Both are opposing any move to dilute the age-old custom of the temple. “Different temples have different customs. In Sabarimala there is no discrimination, there are some restrictions. It is because of the nature of the deity,” said activist Rahul Eswar, also the grandson of the tantri.
Devasom Commissioner N Vasu also distanced from the stand taken by the counsel in the court. “The court is yet to hear the new board. We will have a meeting soon and take an appropriate decision,” he said.