A Brief Note on Sabarimala Temple

Sabarimala temple is an ancient Ayyappan temple. Ayyappan is also known as Dharmasastha and Sastha. It is located in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. The Sabarimala temple background states that women of reproductive age, i.e., 10-50 years, are not allowed to visit the temple. This decision was taken by the Devaswom Board: the board that manages the temple. It is because Lord Ayyappan is a celibate deity. Even Kerala High Court supported this notification and provided a legal justification. Hence from 1991, women were legally not allowed to visit the temple.

However, on 28th September 2018, the Supreme Court of India passed a judgement saying that all devotees can enter the temple, regardless of gender. The ban on women violated the Right to Freedom (Article 25) and the Right to Equality (Article 14). Let us now find out what happened post-verdict.

How was the Decision Taken?

The Supreme Court’s verdict on 28th September 2018 allowed women to enter the Ayyappan temple irrespective of age. The decision-taking bench had five judges and was made with a 4:1 majority. The Supreme Court stated the ban on women’s entry into the temple is gender discrimination and violates Hindu women’s rights. 

The ban was tradition vs women’s rights. The Court made a point that a group of women cannot be banned inside the temple due to physiological reasons. The Chief Justice of India said that there should be no discrimination in devotion, and patriarchy should not be allowed to hamper equality.

Ironically the only vote against the judgement was of a lady judge, Justice Indu Malhotra. Supporting her vote, she said, issues that have deep religious beliefs should not be touched to maintain harmony in the country.

Sabarimala Temple – Views of  Those Who Support Women’s Entry 

Following are the viewpoints of people supporting the removal of the Sabarimala temple background or allowing women’s entry:

• Barring women from entering religious places is against the Indian Constitution Articles of 14, 15, 19, and 25. These articles deal with the right against discrimination on gender, the right to equality, freedom of religion and freedom of movement
• Article 26(1) of the Indian Constitution says about the right to manage its religious affairs. But it cannot override the right to practice religion itself
• The barred women complain that their fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Indian constitution is curbed. This article talks about the free practice of religion
• Some people comment that barring women from the temple is a way to promote patriarchy
• Shani Shingnapur Temple started allowing women in April 2016 post Court orders. This ban was uplifted after 400 years

Sabarimala Temple Background – Views of Those Who Are Against Women’s Entry

Following are the viewpoints of people against the removal of the Sabarimala temple background or stopping women’s entry:

• Women are not allowed to enter the temple to maintain its purity
• People say this ban was imposed because Lord Ayyappan was a celibate deity
• Sabarimala was a particularly religious place that could form its own rules
• Article 15 of the Indian Constitution does not apply to holy places
• People against women’s entry say that their measures are protected by Article 25(1)
• Article 25(2) does not talk about religious or gender-based issues

Protests Post Sabarimala Verdict

• CM Pinarayi Vijayan had a tough time controlling the religious emotions of people. The matter even took a political turn
• Many women of menstruating age were stopped from entering the temple by police and protesting men
• The protesting men assaulted women journalists, and police had to use lathis to disperse them
• Sabarimala Karma Samithi, a not-so-popular organisation, called for a state-wide hartal
• Shiv Sena Kerala unit and BJP-led NDA’s Kerala Unit were in support of the hartal
• Pandalam Palace told the high temple priest (Tantri) to shut the sanctum if, by mistake, a woman entered the temple. Tantri agreed with this view

Conclusion

Barring women from entering the temple on baseless notions is a clear killing of their fundamental rights. In the medieval era, menstruation was considered impure and polluted, and such perspectives do not stand true today. Menstruation is a physiological condition of a female’s body and it is pure in every way, and humans cannot reproduce without it. Devotion should not be mixed with such silly criteria. We all are God’s children and should have equal rights to pray to them, whatever the physiological condition. And that is what the court stood by.