“The Sabarimala Temple Controversy: Upholding Tradition vs. Gender Equality”
The Sabarimala Temple case refers to a legal dispute in India regarding the entry of women of menstruating age (10-50 years) into the Sabarimala Temple, located in the state of Kerala. The temple is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa and is considered one of the holiest sites in Hinduism. The case sparked significant controversy and debate surrounding gender equality, religious practices, and constitutional rights.
Background:
Traditionally, the Sabarimala Temple has prohibited the entry of women of menstruating age, citing the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa as the reason. This practice was based on the belief that the presence of women of reproductive age would disturb the deity’s celibacy. The temple’s rules were enforced through a customary practice known as the “age-old custom” or the “age-old tradition.”
Legal Proceedings:
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India challenging the prohibition on women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple. The PIL contended that the temple’s practice violated the fundamental rights of equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
After several years of hearings, the case gained significant attention, both nationally and internationally. The Supreme Court heard arguments from various parties, including the petitioners advocating for gender equality and the temple authorities defending the temple’s traditions.
Judgment:
On September 28, 2018, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the Sabarimala Temple case. The bench, in a 4-1 majority decision, held that the prohibition on women’s entry into the temple was unconstitutional and violated their fundamental rights.
The court’s majority opinion, authored by then-Chief Justice Dipak Misra, emphasized that biological or physiological characteristics, such as menstruation, cannot be the sole basis for discrimination. It noted that the practice of excluding women of a particular age group from the temple amounted to discrimination based on sex and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality.
The court also rejected the argument that the temple’s practice was protected under the right to freedom of religion. It held that religious practices cannot undermine the constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination. The court clarified that religious practices should be consistent with constitutional morality and should not perpetuate gender stereotypes or subordination.
However, one judge, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented from the majority opinion. She opined that courts should not interfere in matters of religious practices unless they were oppressive or regressive. She argued that the court should respect the temple’s beliefs and traditions unless they were discriminatory or harmful.
Aftermath:
The Supreme Court’s judgment sparked mixed reactions. Supporters of gender equality hailed it as a progressive step towards eliminating gender-based discrimination. However, the judgment also faced resistance from certain religious and conservative groups who felt it infringed upon their religious rights and customs.
Following the judgment, several women attempted to enter the Sabarimala Temple, but faced protests and resistance from conservative groups. The state government provided security and implemented measures to facilitate the entry of women into the temple.
In subsequent years, the Sabarimala Temple case underwent further legal proceedings. Some review petitions were filed seeking a reconsideration of the court’s judgment, but in November 2019, a larger bench of the Supreme Court, in a 3-2 majority, upheld the 2018 judgment and rejected the review petitions.
It is important to note that the Sabarimala Temple case is ongoing, and there may be further developments and legal proceedings in the future.