Sabarimala Verdict 2018

 

In a 4:1 judgment, 5-membered constitution bench of Supreme Court, in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. the State of Kerala, has allowed women of all ages to worship in Sabarimala Temple.

The petitions had challenged the Constitutional validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which restricts the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple as being ultra-vires Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 which states that places of public worship are to be open to all sections and classes of Hindus.

Sabarimala Temple Issue

• Located in the forests of the Western Ghats in Kerala’s Pathanamthitta district, the hill shrine is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa and is managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB).
• The Sabarimala temple prohibits women aged between 10 and 50 years from entering the shrine.
• It is said that its deity, Lord Ayyappa, is a “Naisthik Brahmachari” and that allowing young women to enter the temple would affect the idol’s “celibacy” and “austerity”.
• Board has said that the prohibition on women of menstruating age from entering the temple is a part of 'Essential Religious Practice' of Lord Ayappa devotees.

Judgement

• SC has ruled that Rule 3(b) is ultra-vires the Constitution, Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 as well as Section 4 of the 1965 Act which says that the regulations/rules made under this act shall not discriminate, in any manner whatsoever, against any Hindu on the ground that he/she belongs to a particular section or class.
• Supreme Court condemned the prohibition as "Hegemonic Patriarchy" (hegemonic patriarchy means that patriarchy has become such an over-arching idea that discrimination based on it appears to be common sense to such an extent that not only men, even women become the supporter and perpetrator of the very notion which discriminates them).
• It said that exclusion on grounds of biological and physiological features like menstruation was unconstitutional. It amounted to discrimination based on a biological factor exclusive to gender. It was violative of the right to equality and dignity of women.
• SC said that prohibition founded on the notion that menstruating women are "polluted and impure" is a form of untouchability and the notions of purity and pollution stigmatized women.
• SC overturned the 1951 judgment of Bombay High Court in the State of Bombay versus Narasu Appa Mali which held that the personal law is not 'law'  under article 13 of constitution
• No customs or usages can claim supremacy over the Constitution.

Present Situation

There has been many review petitions after the 2018 judgement. At present has been sent to larger bench to determine the ambit and scope of religious freedom practiced by multiple faiths across the country.