Supreme Court lifts ban on entry of women in Sabarimala temple KOCHI: The Kerala government and Travancore Devasom Board welcomed the Supreme Court verdict , allowing entry of women of all age groups to Sabarimala hill shrine. The order predictably, did not go well with the Sabarimala thantri and Panthalam royal family.Devaswom and tourism minister Kadakampally Surendran said the government wholeheartedly welcomed the SC order. ''We welcome the order. It gives equal justice to women. However, its the responsibility of Devasom board to implement the order in its original spirit. There may be some practical difficulties, but the board is expected to overcome all impediments towards implementing the SC verdict'', the minister said.Travancore Devasom Board president A Padmakumar too welcomed the order and said the board would take all earnest efforts to implement the order. ''Even though there is difference of opinion, the Travancore Devaswom Board is bound to accept and implement the Supreme Court verdict'', said board president A Padmakumar.The order will be executed after having discussions with the state govt, thantri of Sabarimala and Pandalam palace authorities. "TDB is a law binding institution and hence the supreme court verdict will be implemented without fail. There should not be any concern on this, said TDB president.Sabarimala priest Kandararu Rajeevaru said the order was unfortunate as it has interrupted an age old tradition. Pandalam Royal family representatives too expressed concern over the order and said a final opinion on the same could be formulated only after reading the verdict.<doc-sep>KOCHI: A five-judge Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra is expected to deliver its verdict on entry of women into Sabarimala Temple at 10.30am on Friday.The other members of the bench are Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra.A petition filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association against State of Kerala is being considered by the court. The case, which is a public interest litigation (PIL), was filed on July 28, 2006 and admitted by the court on January 11, 2016. It was heard and reserved for pronouncing judgment on August 1.The petition challenges the ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years, or women of menstrual age, from entering the hilltop shrine. Those in favour of the entry of women have contended that it is their individual right to practice faith and that access to the temple is essential for practicing their faith.In July, state government had told the court that it favours entry of women to the temple and that the temple does not belong to a religious denomination. Therefore, the constitutional right to manage religious affairs (Article 26) cannot be invoked to defend the ban, government had informed the court.In October 2017, the apex court had referred the matter to a Constitution bench and had said significant questions such as whether the ban on women amounted to discrimination and violation of fundamental rights need to be considered.Those supporting the ban have contended that Lord Ayyappa, the deity of the temple, is a ‘naishtika brahmacharya ’ (perennial celibate). Practising celibacy is a core tenet for the followers of Lord Ayyappa and the faith cannot be practiced if women capable of menstruating are allowed entry, it was argued. It is a unique Ayyappa temple following a religious practice that is protected under the right to religious practice based on the religious belief from time immemorial, they had contended.The bench has narrowed down the issue to five questions, which includes whether the ban on women amounts to discrimination, whether such practice constitutes an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 (freedom of religion), and whether the Ayyappa temple has a denominational character and whether such a denomination can enforce a ban.The case has a total of 24 respondents, including chief secretary of the State of Kerala, Travancore Devaswom Board (which manages Sabarimala temple), chief thantri of Sabarimala Temple, Nair Service Society, Sabarimala Custom Protection Forum, and Rahul Easwar.<doc-sep>Ending a centuries-old ban on the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, the Supreme Court said on Friday that exclusion on the basis of biological and physiological features was unconstitutional and discriminatory because it denied women the right to be treated as equals. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra in a 4:1 verdict held that restrictions on the entry of women in religious places for physiological reasons lowered her dignity. CJI Misra, justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud ruled against the restriction, declining to accept it as an essential practice of a denominated religious group and said it was a form of untouchability. “The dualism that persists in religion by glorifying and venerating women as goddesses on one hand and by imposing rigorous sanctions on the other hand in matters of devotion has to be abandoned. Such a dualistic approach and an entrenched mindset results in indignity to women and degradation of their status,” said the judgment by CJI Misra,who wrote for justice Khanwilkar and himself. The dissenting judge, justice Indu Malhotra, warned against judicial review of religious faith and belief and insisted on the need for balance between two rights – equality and the freedom to profess one’s religion. “Notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by courts,” she said. The majority judgment struck down as unconstitutional Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 . The top court overruled the Kerala high court’s 1991 judgment upholding the restriction on the entry of women between the age of 10 and 50. The HC had accepted the contention that the ‘Naisthik Brahmachari’ nature of the presiding deity, Lord Ayappa, was enough to impose this restriction . “Prejudice against women based on notions of impurity and pollution associated with menstruation is a symbol of exclusion. The social exclusion of women, based on menstrual status, is but a form of untouchability which is an anathema to constitutional values,” justice Chandrachud noted . “The issue for entry in a temple is not so much about the right of menstruating women to practice their right to freedom of religion, as about freedom from societal oppression,” he said. The Centre welcomed the judgment. “I welcome the Supreme Court order to allow women of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple. Hindu religion is inclusive. God is equal to all, it’s wrong to discriminate,” said women and child development minister Maneka Gandhi. But privately, BJP leaders said they were troubled by the judgment and that the court should have been more careful in deciding on matters of faith. They also argued that now that the Sabarimala issue is decided, the same yardstick should be applied to issues of other faiths. The Congress also praised the verdict and said religious beliefs and laws should evolve with society. “There can be no discrimination to worship on the basis of gender or otherwise. A welcome and progressive move towards gender equality by Supreme Court in Sabrimala,” Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala tweeted. The Kerala government called the verdict historic. “The government and Travancore Devasom Board (TDB) will make all arrangements to implement it. We will ensure smooth pilgrimage to women,” said state temple affairs minister Kadakampally Surendran. “Now women can choose if they want to go or not. Earlier it was imposed on them in the name of religion,” said Rekha Sharma, the head of the National Commission for Women. But the supreme priest of the Sabarimala temple, Rajeevaru Kandarau, said the verdict was “really disappointing”. “It was part of the temple’s age-old custom. It is really painful for me to dilute it. But since the court ruled it we have to go by it,” he said. The judgment came on a bunch of petitions filed by non-government organisations and individuals. It was an exclusionary practice leading to a classification that lacked constitutional objective, the court was told. The temple board justified the tradition and attributed it to the manifestation of the deity, who is believed to be a celibate. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who was asked to assist the top court, supported the petitioners. Misra and Khanwilkar condemned societal attitudes centered around patriarchal mindset and remarked , “Faith and religion do not countenance discrimination but religious practices are sometimes seen as perpetuating patriarchy thereby negating the basic tenets of faith and of gender equality and rights.” The temple board’s argument that devotees of Ayappa constituted a religious denomination was also turned down. “There is no identified group called Ayyappans. Every Hindu devotee can go to the temple. Devotees of Lord Ayyappa are just Hindus and do not constitute a separate religious denomination,” the CJI’s verdict read. “Patriarchy in religion cannot be permitted to trump over the element of pure devotion borne out of faith and the freedom to practise and profess one‟s religion. The subversion and repression of women under the garb of biological or physiological factors cannot be given the seal of legitimacy,” it said. For justice Chandrachud, exclusion on the ground of menstrual status of a woman was tantamount to untouchability that applied to systemic humiliation, exclusion and subjugation faced by women, besides in relation to lower castes. “To treat women as children of a lesser god is to blink at the Constitution itself,” he said. The fundamental right to profess religion was equally entitled to all persons, including women, held justice Nariman. He said the right claimed by thanthris who justified prohibition integral to their faith must yield to the right of women who cannot be denied the right to worship at any temple of their choice. Rejecting the contention that the rules were due to the celibate character of the deity, justice Chandrachud said “the assumption in such a claim is that a deviation from the celibacy and austerity observed by the followers would be caused by the presence of women. Such a claim cannot be sustained as a constitutionally sustainable argument.” (with inputs from Ramesh Babu in Thiruvananthapuram)<doc-sep>
(CNN) — Women of all ages will be allowed to enter India’s Sabarimala Temple, one of Hinduism’s holiest sites, after the country’s Supreme Court overturned a centuries-old ban Friday, the latest in a succession of progressive judgments to come out of the top court in recent weeks. A five-judge bench struck down the religious ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the temple in southern Kerala state, ruling it to be discriminatory and arguing that women should be able to pray at the place of their choice. “It is constitutional morality that is supreme. Prohibition can’t be regarded as an essential component of religion,” said the judges’ ruling. The golden-roofed temple, which is thought to be more than 800 years old, is considered the spiritual home of Lord Ayyappa, a Hindu god of growth. Nestled atop a steep mountain amid a lush green tiger reserve, it’s the site of one of the world’s largest annual pilgrimages, with millions of Hindu devotees making the journey each year. Sabarimala had previously been off limits to women of menstrual age on religious grounds, with proponents of the ban arguing that since Ayappa is considered celibate, allowing “impure” women into the shrine would be disrespectful. Others have maintained that women cannot complete the 41 days of penances, a condition required to undertake the pilgrimage. ’Extremely radical’ Responding to the judgment, the board responsible for managing the temple complex said it would abide by the Supreme Court ruling and would not file a counter case. “We are happy that all controversies related to Sabarimala are settled,” said the Devaswom Board in a statement. “Since women who believe in Lord Ayyappa will be coming, we have no choice but to welcome them.” The Devaswom Board had previously upheld the ban by citing Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees a religious denomination the right to manage its own internal religious affairs. In its judgment Friday, the Supreme Court overturned that defense, ruling that devotees of Lord Ayappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination. Kaleeswaram Raj, a Supreme Court lawyer based in Kerala, described the judgment, in which four of five judges voted to overturn the ban, as “extremely radical and libertarian.” “The fundamental point involved was whether the question of liberty and equality is dependent on individual religious practices or whether these practices can have a say over the constitutional right of an individual,” said Raj, who was not involved in the case directly. “Excluding women doesn’t stand the test of time and the Constitution, which is essentially secular, has prevailed.” The ruling is likely to prove divisive among religious groups, however, with Hindu conservatives and local campaigners calling for a renewed legal challenge to overturn Friday’s decision. “We will submit a review petition next week. That will give us more time to consider our arguments in a much more meaningful manner,” said prominent Kerala activist Rahul Easwar. “We will hold prayer meetings, peaceful demonstrations, to consider what to do next. But we request everyone not to take law and order into their own hands.” A decades long fight The judgment marks the culmination of a decades-long battle to overturn the ban on women accessing the temple. The ban was first challenged before the Kerala High Court in August 1991, with the high court ruling that only a priest could make the decision on allowing women access to the temple. In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court, again challenging the custom on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right to equality under Article 14, and freedom of religion for female worshipers under Article 25. The Supreme Court began hearing the case in 2016, referring it to a Constitution Bench the following year. “Kerala has a history of radical reformations within the realm of religion. We have had so many social reformations such as against untouchability (related to caste). This is a kind of untouchability but indicated by gender,” said Supreme Court lawyer Raj. “Equal rights were accepted by the public on the basis of political and religious education. Slowly people will accept the spirit of this verdict,” added Raj. The case is the latest to result in a headline-grabbing judgment from Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra before he retires next month.