‘ Lord Ayyappa against women’s entry’
■ Ending Sabarimala ban will hit devotees’ rights, SC told
As per custom and long tradition, women in the 10- 50 age group aren’t allowed at Sabarimala as the manifestation of God in the Ayyappa temple is a celibate and the deity doesn’t want the presence of women in this age group, senior advocate K. Parasaran argued in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Mr Parasaran made this submission before a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, A. M. Kanwilkar, D. Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, hearing a batch of petitions challenging the ban on entry of women between 10 and 50 years old. Mr Parasaran, appearing for Nair Society, one of the intervenors, said Sabarimala was a unique temple where besides Hindus, Christians, Muslims and even foreigners are allowed entry. But as per the custom and long tradition, women in the 10- 50 age group aren’t allowed. He submitted if the court were to abolish the practice, the very character of the religious institution would be irreparably altered, affecting the rights of devotees under Article 25( 1). He submitted this case doesn’t involve a social issue but a religious one. By using Article 25( 2), he warned the court, “Your Lordships will reform a religion out of its identity”.
He said not only the
The presence of women in the age of 10 and 50 will disturb the penance of Lord Ayyappa and hence the Lord himself does not want their presence. — K. Parasaran, Senior advocate You ( Parasaran) say that throwing open public temples for all sections has no religious connotations. What will happen if the State comes out with a law to bring social reforms and allow women in the temple? — SC
perception of the worshipper but also what was being worshipped was also important. If a devotee feels he is not worshipping the idol of a brahmachari, he may not go to that temple. In all other Ayyappa temples in Kerala, women are allowed entry without discrimination.
He said the concept is that the presence of women in the 10- 50 age group will disturb the penance of Lord Ayyappa and hence the Lord himself doesn’t want their presence. Mr Parasaran that Lord Ayyappa’s character as a “naishtika brahmachari” was protected by the Constitution and the judiciary can’t interfere with it.
Referring to the observation by Justice Chandrachud on Tuesday that the ban of women is due to a patriarchial system, Mr Parasaran said 96 per cent of women in Kerala were educated and it was a matrilineal society. Therefore, to assume that the practice of the Sabarimala temple was based on patriarchy was fundamentally incorrect. Mr Parasaran submitted that the basis of the practice was the celibate nature of the deity, not misogyny. Devotees who visit the temple too are expected to observe celibacy in letter and spirit. Hence, during the journey, the company of women must be avoided. He argued that misogyny was not supported by Hindu shastras, nor was chastity the sole obligation of the woman. In fact, chastity was a greater obligation on the man and he was duty bound under the shastras to give pride of place to the woman.
Mr Parasaran submitted that democracies must protect religion and tradition. He said the Hindu religion respects merit and wisdom wherever it comes from. He felt while the court must listen to activist voices, it must equally listen to voices which seek to protect tradition.
Mr Parasaran submitted that the legislature is Brahma, the executive is Vishnu and Shiva is the judiciary, as only Shiva’s “ardhanarishwara” form the basis of Article 14 — the equal treatment of both sexes.
He said Shiva was no brahmachari, but even when his meditative state was sought to be disturbed by Kama Deva, he was reduced to ash as he failed to respect that state of Shiva. Cautioning the courts, the former attorneygeneral said: “We must not proceed with the presumption that the ancients knew nothing and that we know better in all aspects of life.”
Justices Nariman and Chandrachud wanted to know whether the State was bound to make laws under Article 25( 2) ( b) of the Constitution to throw open Hindu temples to all classes of people, including women, without any age restriction.
“You ( Parasaran) say that throwing open public temples for all sections has no religious connotations. What will happen if the State comes out with a law to bring social reforms and allow women in the temple?” the bench asked.
Mr Parasaran said this right of the State applies only to social reform, it still doesn’t apply to matters of religion under Article 26( b). When the CJI asked why women were excluded, he said it was done as per the religious practices and customs followed over the years.
Mr Parasaran submitted that Article 25( 2) deals only with secular aspects and the right of entry of classes or sections. It doesn’t, therefore, apply to religious aspects or the right of entry based on gender.
He said even if Article 25( 2) applies to women, it is only with respect to social issues but not religious issues. He further said that Article 25( 2)( b) was at best an enabling provision for the legislature, and doesn’t enable the judiciary to interfere with customs, which were integral to religious practice.