Doubts, dismay after India temple verdict
Sabarimala management to seek review after court lifts ban on women
India’s Supreme Court yesterday lifted a temple’s ban on women of menstruating age, holding that equality is supreme irrespective of age and gender, a decision that caused dismay among the devout.
The historic Sabarimala temple had barred women age 10 to 50 from entering the temple, one of the largest Hindu pilgrimage centres in the world.
Some religious figures consider menstruating women to be impure. But the court ruled 4-1 the practice of excluding women cannot be regarded as an essential religious practice.
Rahul Eswaran, an attorney for the temple, said its management would seek a review of the court’s decision.
Chhavi Methi, a women’s rights activist, hailed the court verdict, but said its acceptance by temple authorities remained to be seen.
“I am doubtful the temple authorities would take it in the right spirit. Women would accept it, but its implementation might pose a problem,” she said.— Agencies
The Supreme Court of India in a historic verdict yesterday ruled that women in the age group of 10-50 can enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala dedicated to Hindu deity Ayyappa. The court said the existing practice violated women’s fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees.
In a majority judgement, Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman judge in the five-judges bench, gave a dissenting judgement.
“Right to worship is given to all devotees and there can be no discrimination on the basis of gender. The practice of barring women in age group of 10-50 to go inside the temple is violative of constitutional principles,” said Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra while delivering the verdict.
Biological factor
Devotees of Ayyappa are Hindus: they don’t constitute a separate religious denomination. No physiological and biological factor can be given legitimacy if it doesn’t pass the test of conditionality. Restrictions put by Sabarimala temple can’t be held as essential religious practice, Justice Misra said.
“Morality for the purpose of 25 and 26 is ephemeral in nature. Fundamental Rights under PART III of Constitution is essential for transformation of a society,” Justice Nariman said in his verdict.
“Anything destructive of individuality is anachronistic of Constitutionality. To treat women as lesser people blinks at the Constitution itself. Dignity of individual is an unwavering nature of fundamental rights,” he said.
“The fact that women have a physiological feature of menstruating has nothing to do with her right to pray,” Justice Nariman said.
“Religious practices can’t solely be tested on the basis of the right to equality. It’s up to the worshippers, not the court to decide what’s religion’s essential practice,” said Justice Indu Malhotra, dissenting judge in the 4-1 verdict.
“Present judgement won’t be limited to Sabarimala, it will have wide ramifications. Issues of deep religious sentiments shouldn’t be ordinarily interfered into,” she said.
Jayamala delighted
In one of the early reactions to the apex court verdict, Kannada actress Jayamala said she was “delighted” by the verdict. The actress had stunned Hindu faithful in 2006 when she revealed that she had entered the Sabarimala temple and even touched the deity.
Responding to the court verdict, she described it as “historic”, adding that the “judge will be blessed”.
The court verdict delighted many, but not all on both sides of the gender divide were gladdened.
G. Raman Nair, former president of the Travancore Devaswom Board that controls the temple, said, “In one word, the court decision can be described as ‘disappointing’. People may say things like gender freedom to justify the court decision, but fact is that even before India’s freedom, the Sabarimala temple had a tradition of allowing only men for worship.
“The very fact that the only woman judge on the bench that gave the verdict disagreed with the other judges shows that all women are not interested in women’s entry to Sabarimala”, he added.
Kerala devaswom minister Kadakampally Surendran welcomed the court verdict, and said the verdict came after lengthy decisions at all levels. “We wholeheartedly welcome the decision”, he said, adding that it was up to the Travancore Devaswom Board to implement it.
TDB president, A. Padmakumar said the board would discuss the verdict and take appropriate decisions. He said the TDB had “no other option but to follow the verdict because we are a law-abiding organisation”.
To treat women as lesser people blinks at the Constitution itself. Dignity of individual is an unwavering nature of fundamental rights.”
Justice Nariman Religious practices can’t solely be tested on the basis of the right to equality. It’s up to the worshippers, not the court to decide….”
Justice Indu Malhotra
Priests disappointed
The tantri family, the traditional priests at the Sabarimala temple, however expressed dissatisfaction at the court ruling. “The verdict was unexpected and disappointing”, said Kantararu Rajivaru, one of the priests.