The doors of Sabarimala made opened by Supreme Court to women of all ages

The Supreme Court, in a historic verdict on Friday, allowed the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple in Kerala.

A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, by a majority of 4:1, held that denial of entry to women only on the ground that they were menstruating violated Article 14 of the Constitution  the right to equality.

Till now, women in the 10-50 age group were denied entry on the ground that they were of menstruating age. The court termed this centuries-old Hindu religious practice as illegal and unconstitutional and paved the way for women’s worship at par with men. 

The CJI said that in no scenario, it can be said that exclusion of women of any age group could be regarded as an essential practice of the Hindu religion. 

Interestingly, the only woman in the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, was the sole dissenter to the majority verdict.

Differing with the majority view, she said in a secular polity, Courts must not ordinarily interfere with issues, which are matters of deep religious faith and sentiment. Article 25(1) confers on every individual the right to freely profess, practise and propagate his or her religion. The right of an individual to worship a specific manifestation of the deity, in accordance with the tenets of that faith or shrine, is protected by Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

However The CJI held that rights guaranteed under Article 25(1) had nothing to do with gender or, for that matter, certain physiological factors specifically attributable to women and the denial of entry to the temple denudes them of their right to worship.

The worshippers of this Temple believe in the manifestation of the deity as a ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’.  She said the Court couldn’t impose its morality or rationality with respect to worship of a deity. 

Doing so would negate the freedom to practise one’s religion according to one’s faith and beliefs.The worshippers of this Temple believe in the manifestation of the deity as a ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’.  She said the Court couldn’t impose its morality or rationality with respect to worship of a deity. Doing so would negate the freedom to practise one’s religion according to one’s faith and beliefs. 

In his main verdict, the CJI said there couldn’t be any discrimination in approach to divinity and spirituality. “Man can’t dominate views of worship and biological factors can’t be a legitimate ground to deny women the right to worship,” the Chief Justice  said, adding that a patriarchal mindset had resulted in this prejudice against women.

He rejected the submission that devotees of Ayyappa constituted a separate section of Hindus. Custom and practice must allow everyone to offer worship without discrimination, he said, adding: 

“The courts must not grant legitimacy to religious practices which derogate women.” The CJI rejected the submission that devotees of Ayyappa constituted a separate section of Hindus. Custom and practice must allow everyone to offer worship without discrimination, he said, adding: “The courts must not grant legitimacy to religious practices which derogate women.”

Justice Misra said: “Women are in no way inferior to men. On one hand, women are worshipped as goddesses, but there are restrictions on the other hand. 

Relationship with God can’t be defined by biological or physiological factors. Banning entry of women to the shrine is gender discrimination. The practice of exclusion of women of the 10-50 age group cannot be regarded as an essential religious practice.

Devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination. Patriarchal notions cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion. Religion is a way of life – basically to link life with divinity. The Sabarimala temple’s practice violates the rights of Hindu women.”

The CJI said that in no scenario, it can be said that exclusion of women of any age group could be regarded as an essential practice of the Hindu religion. On the contrary, it was an essential part of the Hindu religion to allow Hindu women to enter a temple as devotees and followers and offer prayers to the deity.

In the absence of any scriptural or textual evidence, “we cannot accord to the exclusionary practice followed at Sabarimala temple the status of an essential practice of the Hindu religion”.

He observed that there is nothing on record to show that the devotees have any common religious tenets peculiar to themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, other than those, which are common to the Hindu religion.

Updated : Old and New face of Hindu Reactions pouring in : Sabarimala verdict