Sabarimala Temple Issue

In the Perinad Village, Pathanamthitta district, Kerala, India, the Sabarimala Temple is a temple complex situated on Sabarimala Hill inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve. With an estimated 40 to 50 million devotees arriving each year, it is one of the busiest annual pilgrimage destinations in the world.

Opposition by conservative groups and political parties against allowing women to attend Temple Emanu-El has resulted in a ban on female worshippers for months, despite Supreme Court orders. The protests grew ferocious after authorities allowed two women to enter the temple in January. The reviewing judges scrutinised this court’s interpretation and intrusion into religious concerns because of the petitioners’ emphasis on deity character and long-held views about the deity.

Argument: 

One side argues that gender discrimination against women because of their menstrual cycle violates their constitutional rights to equality and the ability to worship. At the same time, the other contends that this is not the case with gender discrimination.

The Supreme Court of India overturned a ruling that barred women between 10 and 50 from entering Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple shrine because they were menstruation. Judge Indu Malhotra was one of the five judges who ruled that this Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional in the Sabarimala Temple.

Political Pressure:

• Political parties quickly jumped on board the drama ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections

• After the Supreme Court Sabarimala verdict was handed down by a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, there would be no more political and cultural turbulence around the temple

• Four female judges are on the bench: R.F. Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra for the Sabarimala Temple issue.

• Sabarimala’s two-month “mandalam” season would be reopened on November 16 following the court’s Sabarimala Verdict, and an in-depth look at the temple’s case history is provided.

• The shrine’s 18 gold-plated steps attract millions of pilgrims annually, making it one of its most important pilgrimage destinations.

• Located on a mountaintop in Tamil Nadu is a temple dedicated to Ayyappan, the son of Shiva and Mohini (the female incarnation).

• The Travancore Devasvom Board, a subsidiary of the Kerala government, oversees the board’s administrative and legal tasks.

Controversial Thoughts:

There are two schools of thought on whether it is proper to allow women to have their periods in the holy temple. According to legend, Lord Ayyappa forbids menstruating women from entering the temple due to the destruction of Malikapurathamma. When worshippers leave Sabarimala, the Lord has sworn to marry her if no one comes to see him.

Lord Ayyappa, according to the other tale, was born into a royal family and vanquished an Arab invasion before renouncing all earthly pursuits, including sex.

Tourists say they’ve noticed an informal rule against menstruation of women from ages 10 to 50 being barred from entering the shrine because they believe it would weaken the temple’s celibate god.

However, even though women attended the temple for years and Kerala’s high court made the traditional law in the early 1990s, the Supreme Court overruled the decision. In October last year, protests broke out after the ruling, and men prevented a dozen women from entering the shrine.

Immediate Incident: 

• After two women entered the temple on January 2, there were protests, but they quickly devolved into tyranny in the temple’s court

• The BJP and right-leaning organisations protested against the Supreme Court’s decision, but women’s rights organisations, attorneys, and left-leaning parties, including the ruling CPI (M), vowed to support it.

• Due to the significant injuries incurred during the “Nama Japa” rallies, Kerala Social Justice Minister K. Shailaja had to issue an advisory warning against using children as a “shield” during the demonstrations. 

• At least three prominent CPI(M) were assassinated in the city of Kannur: an MLA, a member of the Rajya Sabha, and a former district officer. The protests resulted in the arrest of almost 3,000 persons.

• Right-wing organisations were interfering with state enforcement of the court’s order. Therefore Kerala’s administration petitioned the Supreme Court to relocate matters involving a temple from Kerala’s High Court.

Lawsuits That Were Previously Filed

A devotee like Mahendran stated that the temple board of Sabarimala was breaking temple norms by permitting VVIP women to enter the sanctuary, which is forbidden. This long-standing practice has banned women between 10 and 50 years from entering the temple for centuries.

The Indian Young Lawyers Association appealed the decision in 2006, and the Supreme Court upheld it. Denying entrance to women violates both Article 14’s equal treatment guarantee and Article 25’s protection of religious freedom.

• It was initially postponed in January 2016 when a three-judge panel was charged with considering the matter. 

• The following year, the Constitution Bench was formed by Dipak Misra, Justice R Banumathi, and Justice Ashok Bhushan.

• Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, and Indu Malhotra were among the judges who ruled on September 28, 2018, that women had the right to vote in India.

• Sixty-five protestors filed 65 petitions against a Supreme Court order in response to the rallies in Kerala, including 56 petitions for review and four writs.

• The National Ayyappa Devotees (Women’s) Association presented the initial petition. 

• Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA), a group of non-Ayyappa-worshipers, was chastised by the court for submitting a PIL.

•  Another organisation, the Ayyappa Association, made the same point.

A decision in favour of the TDB, which oversees Sabarimala Temple, has been made by the Supreme Court, enabling women of all ages to enter the site. Board members claimed in a subsequent statement that political pressure had not impacted their decision to change course. It had teamed up with the Kerala government to resist several attempts to reverse the landmark judgement.

Aspirational Goals for the Next Generation

K Parasaran, the senior lawyer for the Nair Service Society, argued that Article 15 of the Constitution allows the public to enter secular organisations but not religious ones.

His opinion is that Article 17 of the Constitution, which deals with eliminating caste in society, was misapplied by the court, as the exclusion of specific age groups of women was not based on caste.

Conclusion

The Constitution Bench gave the judgment. In most of the one-fourth of it, the court verdict said that the exclusion of women in Sabarimala destroyed the fundamental rights of women aged between 10 and 50 years, and Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship of the rules was unconstitutional. So, finally, justice prevailed, and the right to religious activity won.