Divided opinion on the Supreme Court’s verdict to remove the ban of women from the entry to Sabarimala temple
The last week has been one of the most memorable and remarkable weeks in the history of Indian Judiciary with the Supreme Court pronouncing the verdicts on the issue of Aadhar, homosexuality, adultery, the arrest of five activists, and entry of women to Sabarimala Temple.
As the former Chief Justice of India Deepak Mishra retired on 3rd October, he has undoubtedly left an indelible mark presiding over such controversial cases which have the potential to deeply influence the country’s social, political, cultural and legal landscape in times to come.
The latest judgement the Supreme Court comprised of five judges in its majority judgement has allowed the entry of menstruating women to the Sabarimala Temple citing the practice of banning women’s entry gender discriminatory and against the women’s right to a dignified life.
Quite ironically, the only judge with the dissenting opinion, Indu Malhotra who herself is a woman, wrote on her dissenting judgement that courts don’t have the right to tinker with the religious matters on the grounds of rationality except for extreme cases such as Sati.
This judgement of the Supreme Court has divided the public opinion. Many people, especially women, have welcomed this move saying that the practice of banning women’s entry to the temple because of their physiology was not only regressive, discriminatory and patriarchal, but also against the constitutional rights that every individual is conferred with irrespective of gender. They argue that the right to practice and propagate one’s religion should be also equally applied to women.
While those who are disappointed with the judgment and are likely to file the review petition in the Supreme Court have argued that banning the entry of women to Sabarimala temple is not the restriction but its the prescription made to not let the celibacy of deity “Ayappa” broken with the entry of women between age group 10 to 50.
In response to those calling the ban discriminatory against women, it is being argued that there are certain temples in the south where the entry of men is completely prohibited; therefore the ban of women’s entry should be seen in the context of certain prescription that are essential to keep the religiousity of the deity Ayappa, they futher add.
The long ongoing tussle between religious morality and constitutional morality is not a new development in the Indian judiciary. The debate on the extent to which the Supreme Court of India can decide on the matters of relgion, especially when the article 25 and 26 accords the relgious freedom to its citizens, has been there since the inception of constituion, as there are many ways in which the costitution is interpreted the judges and legal experts considering the various factors.
Hence, it is of utmost importance that the decions on the sensitive matters which are related to the faith, and are not always back the rationality or logic, should be taken while taking various stakeholders into the consideration. At times the line between diversity and difference is so bleak and thin that it can become very confusing and brainstorming task to distinguish between the both.
Having said that, the fact that women have always been at the receiving end of the discrimination under the garb of religious or cultural sanctions must not be overlooked. As with the passage of time, it’s very imperative that social norms and practices also keep evolving to keep the pace with time.
Currently, I am pursuing B.A(H) Political science from Satyawati College, Delhi University.
I like public speaking, writing and reading in my leisure.
