Sabarimala Verdict

The Sabarimala verdict was one of the landmark judgments taken by the Supreme Court of India on 28 September, 2018. In the judgment, women of all ages are allowed entry into the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. Thus, till now, women between 10 years to 50 years were not allowed to enter the temple of Lord Ayyappa since he is believed to have been a celibate god. For centuries, the temple had forbidden all women of any ages carrying with themselves the possibility of menstruation. It was a very controversial issue in India.

BACKGROUND:

Sabarimala Temple: One of the most important in Kerala, it receives millions of devotees each year.

The ban on women of menstruating age was based on the belief that Lord Ayyappa-the deity worshipped at the temple-is a “Naishtika Brahmachari” and the presence of women in this age group would violate his vow of celibacy.

The rules were passed under the =Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, that buttressed the ban.

FACTS:

• The temple barred women of menstruating age (10 to 50 years) from entering.
• In fact, the argument for denying this right was based on the belief that the very presence of women in the age of menstruation violated the celibacy of Lord Ayyappa.
• The prohibition was carried out under Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 which prohibited women between menstruating ages from accessing the shrine.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

• Whether the exclusion of women from Sabarimala Temple violated their constitutional right to gender equality (Article 14) and freedom from discrimination (Article 15).?
• Whether the practice of excluding women of menstruating age could be considered an “essential religious practice” under Article 25 of the Constitution, which protects religious freedom?

The Court Case:

The case arrived in the Supreme Court on a petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association in 2006 on the grounds that the ban violated not just the constitutional rights of equality and non-discrimination of women, but also freedom of religion.

The said ban, the petitioners averred, infringed several articles of the Indian Constitution, which include:

Article 14: Right to equality.

Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex.

Article 17: Abolition of ‘untouchability’ (in the sense argued that women in menstruation are regarded impure).

 Article 17: Freedom of religion.

CONTENTIONS:

• CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS-

The three main contentions are made by the petitioners, led by Indian Young Lawyers Association, who argued exclusion from Sabarimala Temple because women were not allowed into it.

This includes violation of basic rights, equality, and non-discrimination

The petitioners submitted that the restriction put upon women between 10 and 50 years of age not to enter the temple infringed their right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

They referred to Article 15, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, and argued that the exclusion of women due to their biological process (menstruation) was discriminative.

1. Freedom of Religion is afforded by Article 25:

Here, the contention of the petitioners was that the right conferred under Article 25 of the Constitution to have freedom of religion includes the right to worship both for men and for women. The particular prohibition imposed on women of menstruating age was held violative of this right since it deprived them of access to practice their religion.

2. Right to Worship and Access to Public Places:

They felt that since the Sabarimala Temple is a public place of worship, gender cannot be made a criterion for it. Women cannot be deprived of entry to a place as they are not being granted their religious rights but also their right to a public space.

3. Menstruation and social discrimination

Petitioners then claimed that the ban is founded upon an ancient conception of impurity attributed to menstruation, which has debased the dignity of women and perpetuated further social stigma around menstruation.

They appeal to Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) to argue that the concept of pollution and purity due to menstruation about women is a form of untouchability, prohibited by the Constitution.

4. Not Compulsory Religious Practice:

The argument was that exclusion of women from the temple cannot be considered an integral religious practice under Article 25 insofar as the celibacy of Lord Ayyappa does not require that women be barred. They suggested that religious practices must be viewed in the context of constitutional values and that any practice violating fundamental rights cannot be construed to be essential.

5. Constitutional Morality:

They also advanced the argument that the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution — notably equality and non-discrimination — should prevail over outmoded religious customs and practices.

They sought to have the court uphold constitutional rights by abolishing old practices that go against the current constitutional values for women.

• CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPODENT (Travancore Devaswom Board)-

1. Essential religious practice:

The respondents contended that the restriction of entry for women in the menstruating age group into the temple was a religious practice, protected under Article 25, which dealt with freedom of religion. It was submitted that the very practice was part and parcel of the worship of Lord Ayyappa who was considered to be Naishtika Brahmachari, that is, an eternal celibate.

Allowing menstruating age women into the temple would betray the vow of Lord Ayyappa for celibacy and, thus making the restriction quite essential to correctly observe the deity’s worship.

2. Religious Autonomy and Non-Interference:

The respondents contended that Article 26 of the Constitution permits religious denominations to handle matters relating to religion. They insisted that it fell outside the jurisdiction of a court to take cognizance of the religious practices of the temple; for a court to do so would usurp the right of religious groups to run their organizations and acts of religion.

3. Distinct Tradition and Custom:

The respondents felt that there was an exclusive tradition of the Sabarimala Temple, and it needed to be preserved. According to them, the pros for the restriction were due to a centuries-old custom and had been accepted by devotees as part of the religious faith concerning Lord Ayyappa.

They explained that the ban had nothing discriminatory but rather it was founded by religious traditions which needed to be respected and protected.

4. Article 25 (Freedom of Religion):

They asserted that Article 25 conferred rights of freedom of religion on individuals as well as on religious groups subject only to public order, morality, and health. They contended that religious practices, howsoever they may appear discriminatory, should be permitted unless they injure public order or public health.

The respondents argue that exclusion of women was not discrimination but a reasonable part of the worship of Lord Ayyappa and did not offend public morals.

5. Menstruation as an Exclusionary Criterion:

Women respondents defended exclusionary laws stating they are not stigmatizing women but protecting the sanctity and celibacy of Lord Ayyappa. They argued that the presence of menstruating women could disrupt the energy and purity of the deity.

They even argued that the ban was limited to ages between 10 to 50 years and that it was not a complete ban on entry of women into this temple because outside the limits of age, women were permitted to enter.

FINAL JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court of India pronounced the final verdict in the Sabarimala case on 28 September 2018. It is a majority verdict of 4:1. Consequently, the Court declared the age-old tradition preventing women of menstruating age, roughly between 10 and 50 years, from entering the Sabarimala Temple as unconstitutional. Here is the breakdown of the judgment:

The judgment concludes certain important findings.

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

The Court held that the prohibition of women from entering the Sabarimala Temple violated the fundamental rights of women in equality under Article 14 and freedom from discrimination under Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.

The judgment underscored those biological reasons, such as menstruation, cannot be a valid reason to deny women their right to worship. Discrimination of the opposite sex on the basis of menstruation was considered a form of gender bias, contradictory to equality as enshrined in the constitution.

2. Article 25: Freedom of Religion:

It further held that the exclusion of women from the temple was not a vital religious practice to be entitled to protection under Article 25 (right to freedom of religion). For a practice to be necessary, it must be essential to the religion and cannot derogate other provisions of the constitution.

However, the Court observed that exclusion of women did not form an indispensable part of the worship of Lord Ayyappa and was thus not protected by Article 25.

3. Article 17: Abolition of “Untouchability”:

The Court dealt with the issue of social stigma related to menstruation. It opined that exclusion based on menstrual furthered discriminatory practices of the nature of untouchability, violating Article 17 of the Constitution that declares abrogation of all forms of untouchability.

4. Freedom to Worship:

The judgment identifies the equal right of women to worship in public places of worship, such as the Sabarimala Temple. The denial of access to women in the temple violates their rights to worship and freedom to practice religion freely and equally.

Aftermath and Reactions:

Protests and Controversy: When it came forth amidst widespread protests, it received widespread acclaim. Conservative religious groups throughout Kerala including political and cultural organizations protested that it was a move against religious traditions and opposed the verdict. Across Kerala, it showed protests from some devotees not to let women into the temple. Review Petitions: After the verdict was pronounced in the year 2018, multiple review petitions flooded in by asking for re-consideration of the judgment. In 2019 itself, the case was referred by the Supreme Court to a larger seven-judge bench for reviewing the issues dealing with overlapping religious freedom, equality, and constitutional morality. Status: The Supreme Court has referred this to a bigger bench, which hasn’t pronounced an effective judgment to date on this issue and thus remains a concern in Indian society to date. Significance: This was considered a landmark verdict because it aimed at redressing the precarious balance between freedom of religion and gender equality. In addition, it also opened up a much wider discussion on the judicial powers in relation to the domain of religions and how deep a court should venture to interfere with cultural and religious practices.