Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Sabarimala.

    Uploaded by

    Palak Jio
    The Sabarimala temple in Kerala had historically banned women aged 10-50 from entering. The Supreme Court ruled this ban unconstitutional in a landmark verdict (1). The ruling ended a centuries-old tradition but was met with both praise and protests (2). Supporters argued it established equality and individual rights over religious group rights, while opponents said it interfered with religious freedom and practices (3). The government and temple board accepted the ruling but preparations are needed for its implementation to avoid conflict.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sabarimala.

    Uploaded by

    Palak Jio
    26 views4 pages
    The Sabarimala temple in Kerala had historically banned women aged 10-50 from entering. The Supreme Court ruled this ban unconstitutional in a landmark verdict (1). The ruling ended a centuries-old tradition but was met with both praise and protests (2). Supporters argued it established equality and individual rights over religious group rights, while opponents said it interfered with religious freedom and practices (3). The government and temple board accepted the ruling but preparations are needed for its implementation to avoid conflict.

    Original Title

    6. SABARIMALA.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sabarimala temple in Kerala had historically banned women aged 10-50 from entering. The Supreme Court ruled this ban unconstitutional in a landmark verdict (1). The ruling ended a centuries-old tradition but was met with both praise and protests (2). Supporters argued it established equality and individual rights over religious group rights, while opponents said it interfered with religious freedom and practices (3). The government and temple board accepted the ruling but preparations are needed for its implementation to avoid conflict.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    26 views4 pages

    Sabarimala.

    Uploaded by

    Palak Jio
    The Sabarimala temple in Kerala had historically banned women aged 10-50 from entering. The Supreme Court ruled this ban unconstitutional in a landmark verdict (1). The ruling ended a centuries-old tradition but was met with both praise and protests (2). Supporters argued it established equality and individual rights over religious group rights, while opponents said it interfered with religious freedom and practices (3). The government and temple board accepted the ruling but preparations are needed for its implementation to avoid conflict.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    LUCID MAINS CURRENT AFFAIRS 2019

    6. SABARIMALA VERDICT
     BACKGROUND
    Sabarimala is a Hindu pilgrimage center located in the Western Ghat mountain
    ranges of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. Sabarimala is believed to be the place
    where the Hindu God Ayyappan meditated after killing the powerful
    demoness, Mahishi. Ayyappan's temple is situated here amidst 18 hills. It is linked
    to Hindu pilgrimage, predominantly for men of all ages. They wear black or blue
    dress, do not shave till the completion of pilgrimage and smear Vibhuti or Sandal
    paste on their forehead. The devotees are expected to follow a Vratham (41-day
    fasting) prior to the pilgrimage. This begins with wearing of a special Mala (a
    garland made of Rudraksha or Tulasi beads).
    Women between the ages of 10 and 50 are not allowed to enter the temple,
    since the story attributed to Ayyappa prohibits the entry of the women in the
    menstrual age group. This is because Ayyappan is a Bramhachari (celibate).
    Thazhamon Madom'' is the traditional priest family who has powers over the
    matters to be decided in Sabarimala Temple. Tantri is the highest priest and is the
    head of the temple. The important message given at the temple is the ultimate
    knowledge that each individual is a God unto himself/herself, Tat Tvam Asi in
    Sanskrit meaning "That is you". Due to this pilgrims call each other Swami.
     ISSUE & VERDICT:
    PIL was filed by the non-profit body Indian Lawyers
    Association in Supreme Court seeking the entry of all
    women and girls to the temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappan.
    The Constitution Bench was formed to decide on the
    issue.
    Arguments under consideration were:
     Whether the restrictions on women was based on
    biological factors
     Violation of Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 17
    (untouchability),
     Arguments based on Articles 25 (freedom to practice and propagation of
    religion), 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).
     Whether the devotees of the Ayyappa temple form a separate religious
    denomination, thereby being allowed to preserve its own practices and rituals
    among other questions.
    NEO IAS 0484-4030104, 9446331522, 9446334122 Page 1
    www.neoias.com | www.youtube.com/neoias | www.facebook.com/neoias | www.twitter.com/neoias
    Putting an end to a centuries-old tradition, the Supreme Court recently ruled that
    women, irrespective of age, can enter Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. Four
    judgments were delivered. Justice Malhotra, penned a dissenting verdict and the
    rest of the judges responded to lift the ban.
     REACTIONS
     Indian Young Lawyers Association: argued that the bar on entry of women in
    Sabarimala temple is neither a ritual nor a ceremony associated with Hindu
    religion. Welcomes the verdict of the SC.
     Activists hail judgment: called it another step that would help in bringing
    equality. Women have a constitutional right to be able to visit the temple and
    whoever wishes must be allowed to visit it.

     Kerala Government: This was a legal fight which had been going on for a long
    time. Discussions covering all aspects of women’s entry to religious shrines have
    been held in the High Court and Supreme Court. We welcomes the verdict of the
    Supreme Court. Also made clear that review petition would not be filed from
    government side.
     Travancore Devaswom Board: Devaswom president said as a law-abiding body,
    the Travancore Devaswom Board humbly welcomes the order of the Supreme
    Court. Later stated no review petition will be filed.
     Thazhamon priest family, Pandalam royal family, Yogakshema Sabha,Nair
    Service society who were part to this case said their disappointment with the
    verdict and stated they would continue the fight by filing review petition.
     Devotees in large number protested against the judgment and urged the
    government to rectify the situation.

    NEO IAS 0484-4030104, 9446331522, 9446334122 Page 2


    www.neoias.com | www.youtube.com/neoias | www.facebook.com/neoias | www.twitter.com/neoias
     ARGUMENT FOR VERDICT
     Patriarchy in religion cannot be allowed to trump right to pray and practice
    religion. Woman just like men also has the right to pray. Patriarchal rules
    have to change.
     To exclude women of the age group 10-50 from the temple is to deny dignity
    to women. To treat women as children of lesser god is to blink at the
    Constitution.
     The judgement establishes the principle that individual freedom prevails
    over professed group rights, even in matters of religion.
     It opens up the way forward for Hinduism to become even more inclusive
    and not a property of one caste or one sex.
     Supreme Court judgment clearly sends message that no social practice is
    above constitution. This approach may solve many social injustices
    prevailing.
     Social stigma built around traditional notions of impurity has no place in the
    constitutional order, and exclusion based on the notion of impurity is a form
    of untouchability.
     Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious
    denomination as per the verdict and thus the prohibition on women is not
    an essential part of Hindu religion
     Imposition of the burden of a man’s celibacy on a woman which is then
    used to deny her access to spaces to which she is equally entitled is against
    the constitutional values of the country.
     ARGUMENT AGAINST VERDICT
     It Article 25 guarantees freedom to profess and practice one's religion hence
    striking down ban may be against spirit to profess one's religious practice
    accordingly.
     The right to gender equality to offer worship to Lord Ayyappa is protected by
    permitting women of all ages, to visit temples where he has not manifested
    himself in the form of a ‘Naishtik Brahamachari’.Thus case of gender
    inequality is invalid here.
     In a pluralistic society comprising of people with faiths, beliefs and traditions,
    to entertain PILs challenging religious practices followed by any group, sect or
    denomination, could cause serious damage to the constitutional and secular
    fabric of this country.
     Lord Ayyappa is a ‘Legal Person’ and entitled to maintain the ‘Perpetual
    Celibate’ status under the right to privacy under Article 21 and thus his privacy
    needs to be protected.
     Notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religions.
     Court has embarked on a highly unpredictable and perilous path of hyper-
    activism.
     Religion is a matter of faith, and that the essential beliefs or practices of a
    religious denomination or sect are for that denomination or sect to decide.

    NEO IAS 0484-4030104, 9446331522, 9446334122 Page 3


    www.neoias.com | www.youtube.com/neoias | www.facebook.com/neoias | www.twitter.com/neoias
     The limited restriction on the entry of women during the notified age group
    does not fall within the purview of Article 17.
     WAY FORWARD
    The government will be well within its rights to seek from the Supreme Court a
    preparatory time of a year before Sabarimala can be made gender-sensitive. The
    judgment has to be seen as an opportunity to change archaic practices and
    attitudes and usher in a new management culture. The government has to absorb
    the ramifications of the order and undertake planning with foresight. It will be a
    tragedy if this judgment becomes cause to undertake additional construction
    at the Sannidhanam. Large-scale modifications of existing buildings, a re-
    engineering of processes and much-needed training of staff in housekeeping,
    office management and counter management, etc. are the major tasks the
    government cannot shy away from. With the entry of women now a legally
    recognized right, its implementation has to be elegant and foolproof.
    Inadequate safeguards and preparations will only make a mockery of the verdict
    and validate the worst fears.

     CONCLUSION
    Constitutional morality is an important check on religious obscurantism but when
    carried to an extreme it can also be destructive of harmless variety and difference.
    There is a danger of reducing the Constitution itself to another unquestionable “holy
    book”, killing diversity in the name of countering discrimination. This is a popular
    sentiment among the devotees, the government should take steps to eradicate
    these doubts before implementing the Supreme Court verdict. Otherwise a
    confrontation between the state and the people may not go well for the democratic
    values of the country.

    NEO IAS 0484-4030104, 9446331522, 9446334122 Page 4


    www.neoias.com | www.youtube.com/neoias | www.facebook.com/neoias | www.twitter.com/neoias

    You might also like