CONSTITUTION BENCH TO RULE ON SABARIMALA CONTROVERSY

NEWDELHI: The question whether right to practise one’s own religion includes the right to impose restrictions on a particular class of devotees is likely to be decided by a Constitution Bench after the Supreme Court on Monday indicated that the controversy, which triggered off from the Sabrimala temple case, will be referred to a larger bench.

A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra reserved its verdict on a PIL that has challenged the ban on entry of women in the age group 10-50 — the menstruating age — at Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

All the contesting parties in the case, including Kerala government and the temple board, have been asked to give written submissions within a week .

“The issues involved are important questions of law, religion and custom, which should be considered by a Constitution Bench,” the court noted.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Misra said the court will have to balance the rights of a denomination or cult to deny entry to women of particular age vis-à-vis the rights of women who are excluded.

The fact that Kerala government has changed its stance twice in the case would also be considered by the larger bench, the court said. The CPI (M) government in Kerala took a u-turn in November last year and said it supported the entry of women of all age-group inside the temple.

Senior counsel KK Venugopal appearing for the Travancore Dewaswom Board , justified the restriction on the ground that the deity Lord Ayyapa is a `Naisthik Brahmachari’ (celebate) andsaidthe1,000yearoldcustom and religious practice cannot be interfered with.

As per the tradition, Lord Ayyappa does not want the penance to be disturbed. “When the Lord himself does not allow access to women in the age group 10-50, how can the court go into that question,” Venugopal said, adding the court will be doing great injustice to devotees by interfering with culture.

It will set a precedent, which will seriously affect other religious institutions, he argued. Venugopal clarified the practice did not amount to discrimination against women.

His submission was opposed by senior counsel Indira Jaising who said any right of a religious denomination has to be subject to right to equality and non-discrimination.