Status quo at Sabarimala
Larger bench to vet women issues
The Supreme Court on
Thursday referred to a seven-member Constitution
Bench the question of the entry of menstruating women in the 10-50 age group at Lord Ayyappa’s
Sabarimala temple and issues about discriminatory religious practices relating to women in Muslim, Parsi and Dawoodi Bohra communities.
The reference to a sevenjudge Constitution Bench was made by a majority of three judges in a five-judge bench, in which Justices
Rohinton Fali Nariman and
D.Y. Chandrachud took a dissenting position.
Referring to an endeavour by a batch of petitioners to resuscitate the debate about what is essential to religion and integral part of the religion, CJI Ranjan Gogoi, also speaking for Justices
A.M. Khanwilkar and Indu
Malhotra, said the decision of the larger bench would put at rest the “recurring issues touching upon the rights flowing from Article
25 and 26 of the
Constitution”.
Having pointed to the importance of the entire matter involving the rights under Article 25 and 26, CJI Gogoi said: “It is our considered view that the issues arising in the pending cases regarding entry of Muslim women in dargahs/mosques, of Parsi women married to non-Parsis in Agyari and the practice of female genital mutilation (among) Dawoodi Bohras ... may be overlapping and covered by the judgment under review.”
Having referred the entire matter to a seven-judge bench, the majority ruling did not say anything critical about the September 28,
2018 order that permitted the entry of women of all ages at the Sabarimala temple. The majority judgment framed seven questions to be addressed by the seven-judge Bench, including interplay between the freedom of religion and the fundamental rights.
“The majority verdict of the five-member Constitution bench has come out. Two members dissented rejecting all review petitions. Whatever may be the verdict of the apex court, it will be accepted,” he said.
“The verdict of the previous five-member bench exists. The court will examine other issues as well,” he pointed out.
“These issues are related to gender equality which will be examined by a seven-member bench. It has to be seen whether the earlier verdict of the five- member bench will be re-examined by including the findings of the seven-member bench, or the entire verdict on Sabarimala will be examined by the larger bench. Earlier, when petitions were filed seeking a stay on the verdict, the SC had rejected them.
Even the majority verdict given by the fivemember bench has not been changed. Therefore, the government requires more clarity,” he said.
“All legal aspects of the verdict have to be examined in detail. Whatever may be the verdict, the government will implement it,” he said.
Q. If young women go to Sabarimala for the pilgrim season beginning on Saturday, what will be the government stand?
The chief minister said there was still time and there will be some clarity soon.
Q: The BJP and the Congress are arguing that there is a stay for all practical purposes and that the government should not encourage young women to enter the temple?
Pinarayi: The government will accept the verdict. The implication of the verdict will have to be looked into in detail.
Q: The Mandala Makaravilakku season is beginning on Saturday. Some young women have registered online for darshan. If they go there, what will be the government’s stand ? Pinarayi: We have not examined this issue yet. He also referred to the dissenting note of the two judges who said that those in power have the constitutional responsibility to enforce verdict strictly.