ABSTRACT
The ongoing debate over permitting women of all ages to enter Ayyappa's hill temple in Kerala has split public views on women's non-discriminatory access to sacred areas and the preservation of tradition in places of worship. Proponents of gender equality argue that the “restriction violates women's right to access sacred places and violates Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 25(2) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee everyone the right to religious freedom, allowing irrationality to creep into the country's most literate society.” Women's admission, they argue, would contaminate the temple, and Ayyappa's celibate character should be preserved. “On September 28, 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court handed down a momentous decision in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association V. State of Kerala, opening the Sabarimala Temple to women of all ages by rejecting the country's longstanding prohibition on menstruating women worshipping at the hilltop temple. Social dogma-created physiological and biological limitations have no place in this. This would be a violation of one's right to practice religion according to one's faith and convictions. It would be the same as justifying religion. Aside from processions, there is a raging discussion both for and against the judgment taking place across the country. Contrary to this backdrop, an effort has been commenced to emphasize a bird’s eye view on the context of the argument, describing the chronology of proceedings, significant decisions of the court, people’s view on the judgment, critical analysis of the judgment including rational suggestions and reasonable conclusion.
INTRODUCTION
“Sabarimala is an outstanding Hindu temple settled on a brow in Kerala's Pathanamthitta district. Sabarimala temple is devoted to Ayyappa, the God of growth. Aristocrat Manikandan is taken into account as an Associate in Nursing Avatar of Ayyappa. It's believed that he meditated at Sabarimala temple and had become one with the divine. The ban on women coming into the temple premises is being practiced for hundreds of years, as devotees take into account Lord Ayappa, the presiding divinity of the temple, to be celibate.”[1]
While the year 1991, the High Court of Kerala upheld a restriction on females based on the age of females, between 10-50 years from visiting Sabarimala shrine, being in the menstruating age. The case was then extended for quite a long time in the respectable court. The decision was given by a 5-judge seat. In an exceptionally 3:2 dominant part discovering, 2 appointed authorities adhered to their previous remain of suppressing the custom that banned passage of women between the ages of ten and fifty years10-50 years. The choice went ahead with 65 petitions – 56 survey petitions, four contemporary authority record petitions, and five exchange supplications that were documented when the peak court finding of September 28, 2018, started vicious fights in Kerala. Through the majority of 4:1 findings, the honorable Supreme Court had raised the boycott that forestalled ladies and young ladies between ten to fifty years from returning into Sabarimala shrine, and cited that, "the exceptionally old Hindu standards are non-common, illicit and illegal." The examination means to support the issues looked at by ladies owing to individuals' religion and conviction of a non-mainstream category. Subsequently, it's an ideal opportunity to make a move and build up a legal approach to attempt to serve equity.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The court observed that the restriction of girls and women from entering into the temple is not only till Sabarimala, they are restricting from entering into other religious places too. The dispute of the ban of Muslim ladies into the mosques and Parsi ladies in agiyary will be discussed by a larger bench of the court. Each section of an identical spiritual cluster has the right to practice, propagate and profess their spiritual beliefs freely as being an important part of their faith below Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Prevention of entry of women to the Sabarimala temple with the notion of “purity” is irrational and obsolete as well. It offends Article 14 which states equality within the Constitution. In any democratic as well as a civilized society, gender equality and core values need to be mutually treated.
Showing the social measurement, back in the year 1991 in Kerala HC, the judgment expressed the age guideline in the Sabarimala case isn't illegal. In Sabarimala, the god has adored inside such a Naishtika Brahmacharior an abstinent, as seen by the noteworthy court of Kerala. The allies of the restriction on the passage of ladies’ state that this conviction is Buddhism and not Vedic. Inside the Buddhism framework, partner degree energy focus and isn't only the supplication corridor; the god isn't God who is universal, anyway a gracefully of energy (Chaitanya) in an express non-mainstream region. Lakhs of women visit Sabarimala sanctuary yearly to venerate the Lord. The limitation is sensible as the God, Hindu Ayyappa – 'Naishtika Brahmachari' – must not be occupied by the pledge of abstinence.
“In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, it was held that secularism is the basic tenant of the constitution. Moreover, Article 13 of the Constitution holds customs as laws under the constitution. Hence, all the above authorities point out one thing that law does acknowledge religion no matter whether such law is based on it or not. Therefore, it can be said that law and religion are an integral part of each other and religion is the very basis of the formulation of law from the ancient era to the modern era. Not only Hindu laws support this but also many other personal laws support the same.”[2]
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The momentum research is essentially founded on the fundamentals of doctrinal examination. Referring to and dissecting the current information, for example, laws and measurements mean doctrinal exploration. The analyst accepts that the current exploration is significantly subject to existing laws and how they affect one another. To perform a successful examination on such a subject, it is best recommended to lean toward doctrinal research and dissect different significant laws set up. The analyst likewise trusts in not confining the exploration procedure to investigative and prescriptive instruments yet additionally consolidates exact information which helps in additional basic examination of the exploration point. Thus, in the specialist's view, these apparatuses embraced for the flow research are able for the theme examined.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Why is the very demonstration of prohibiting the section of ladies in the Sabarimala Temple prejudicial in nature?
2. Will the candidates who are requesting equity for such a long time have the option to go into the sanctuary?
3. "Inquiries before the bigger seat:
• Whether a court can test if training is fundamental to religion or should the inquiry be left to the individual strict head?
• Should "basic strict practices" be managed the cost of established assurance under Article 26 (opportunity to oversee strict undertakings)?
• What is the "reasonable degree" of legal acknowledgment a court should provide for PILs recorded by individuals who don't have a place with the religion of which practices are under the scanner?"
4. Apart from this, as examined in the Sabarimala case, when will the nine-judge Constitution seat consider the issues identified with the passage of Muslim ladies into mosques, female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra, the Muslim people group, and notwithstanding of Parsi ladies who are hitched to non-Parsi men, in the blessed chimney at an agiary?
DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE
“In Kerala's Pathanamthitta district, Sabarimala is a popular Hindu temple situated on a hilltop. It is enclosed by 18 hills in the Tiger Reserve of Periyar. The temple is dedicated to the God of creation, Ayyappa. Tourists from Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh, and different regions of the country, as well as the globe, are drawn to the temple. Just during the days of Mandalapooja in November-December, Makara Sankranti on January 14, and Maha Vishuva Sankranti on April 14, and the very first 5 days of every Malayalam month, is the shrine open for prayers. The old temple is named Sabarimala. After its construction, it was largely unreachable for about 300 years. A prince of the Pandalam Dynasty, Manikandan, discovered the initial road to Sabarimala in the 12th century. He had with him several supporters, such as the descendants of the family of Vavar (a Muslim warrior conquered by Manikandan). This prince is believed to be Ayyappa's Avatar. It is said that at Sabarimala temple, he meditated and became one with the divine.”[3]
This research paper discusses the situation of Sabarimala, which has been a controversy since 1991. The conflict is over the prohibition of women from worshiping in the Sabarimala Temple, located in Kerala, for 10- 50 years. Due to Lord Ayyapa's celibacy, females are not permitted to worship in Sabarimala. People assume that there should be no female of a certain age category near him, as this reflects disdain for the deity. The issue was questioned in 1990, 1991, 2006, 2007, 2016, 2017, 1018, and 2019.
The chronology of the dispute is as follows:
“1990: S. In Kerala High Court, Mahendran files a plea seeking a ban on female entry to the temple.
Apr 5, 1991: Kerala High Court upholds the age-old ban on entry into the temple by women of a certain age group.
Aug 4, 2006: The Indian Young Lawyers Association files a plea in the Supreme Court seeking to allow entry into the Lord Ayappa Temple at Sabarimala of female worshippers between the ages of 10- 50 years.
Nov 2007: Kerala LDF Government files affidavit supporting PIL calling into question the ban on women's entry.
Jan 11, 2016: Two judge bench of Supreme Court challenges the tradition of prohibiting women from entering the temple.
Apr 11: SC says social equity is jeopardized by the ban of women's entry.
Apr 13: SC says custom can't justify banning the entry of women.
Apr 21: Hind Navotthana Pratishtan and Narayanashrama Tapovanam lodge a petition in SC in favor of women's entry.
Nov 7: LDF Government files SC's latest affidavit claiming that it preferred women in all age groups to join.
Oct 13, 2017: The case is referred to the Constitution Bench by SC.
Oct 27: Plea for a gender-equal bench filed in SC to hear the case.
Jul 17, 2018: The constitutional bench of five judges begins to hear the matter.
Jul 19: The Supreme Court notes that women have a constitutional right to join the temple and challenged the age group's reasoning.
Jul 24: The Supreme Court indicates that constitutional ethos will be checked in the prohibition of female entry.
Jul 25: Nair Service Society informs SC that the celibate aspect of the presiding deity of Sabarimala temple, Lord Ayyappa, is covered by the Constitution.
Jul 26: The Supreme Court observes that it cannot be forgotten to forbid the entry of women because they have been barred from menstruation on a physiological basis.
Aug 1: Verdict reserved by the apex court
Sep 28: The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 decision, permits women to enter the temple of Sabrimala, says that barring women from entering the temple is gender inequality and the custom violates Hindu women's rights.
Oct 8: The Supreme Court petition seeks clarification of the judgment by the National Ayyappa Devotees Association.
Oct 23: On Nov 13, the Supreme Court decides to hear the pleas for review.
Nov 13: On January 22, the Supreme Court decides to hear the review pleas in open court, refusing to stay the judgment.
Nov 14: The Supreme Court refuses to postpone its decision.
Dec 3: Kerala govt moves the Supreme Court demanding the shift from the High Court to the supreme court of relevant cases.
Jan 22, 2019: The Supreme Court says that as Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge of the 5-member Constitution bench, goes on medical leave, it might not start hearing in the case until Jan 30.
Jan 31: The Supreme Court to hear pleas for review on Feb 6.
Feb 6: decision on appeal pleas in the Supreme Court reserves.
Nov 14: The Supreme Court refers to a larger seven-judge bench to re-examine different religious issues, along with the entry of women into the shrine of Sabarimala and mosques and the custom of female genital mutilation in the culture of Dawoodi Bohra. The five-judge bench offers a 3:2 plurality decision, leaving the pleas for review pending.”
READ MORE
[1] Richa Taneja, The Story Of Sabarimala: Origin, Beliefs And Controversy Over Women Entry, NDTV, (Oct. 17, 2018). [2] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 2734. [3] KV Sreemithun, ‘Sabrimala verdict and unique tradition of Southern Temples’, Indus Scrolls, ( Nov. 16, 2019).
WRITER:
NAME: Deepti Rathi
COLLEGE: Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
Comments