Author: Aashna Malik, Maharaja Surajmal Institute
Introduction
Sabarimala Temple is a Hindu temple situated in Western Ghats Mountain ranges of Pathanamthitta District at Periyar Tiger Reserve. It ranks among the largest annual pilgrimages in the world with the estimate of 45-50 million devotees visiting yearly. The Sabarimala Temple dedicated to God Ayyappa, has a custom distinctive in its own respect that includes a 41-day penance before the pilgrimage and a prohibition of women of menstruating age (10-50) from entering the temple, which has become a matter of legal controversy and debate.
The deity Lord Ayyappa worshipped at Sabarimala believed to be Celibate (A practice in Hinduism of abstaining from sexual activities often associated with spiritual growth & detachment from worldly desires) figure. So, the women in their mensuration years (usually between 10 to 50 years) according to the custom are prohibited from entering the temple.
However, this matter was already opposed in 1991, in the Kerala High Court in the case S.Mahendran v. The Secretary Tranvancore, but the court in the case ruled that that practice happening in the temple is not violating the fundamental rights of the female devotees.
Facts of the case
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association and the petitioners Dr. Laxmi Shastri, Alka Sharma, Prerna Kumari, and Sudha Pal challenged the ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple. The restriction, they argued, violated the women's fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Article 14, which protects equality before law, has been grossly subverted by imposing an unreasonable classification based on gender and age. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, sex, or place of birth stressing the fact that the restriction on women from entering the temple is a violation of Article 15 in as much as it is a gross discrimination on the basis of gender. They also submitted that this was equal to a form of untouchability, referred to under Article 17. The State of Kerala, the Travancore Devaswom Board, and devotees of Lord Ayyappa, while defending the tradition of the temple, stated that the restriction infringed on women's dignity and their rights to worship, rather than claiming that such practices constituted an essential religious practice under Articles 25 and 26. However, the petitioners argued that the restriction was not an “essential religious practice” under article 25 and 26, which guarantee the freedom to practice and manage religious affairs. They emphasized that such exclusion deprived women of their worship and participation in religious practices equally.
And after many years The Supreme Court of India in 2018 delivered a landmark judgment on the Sabarimala Case, ruling in a 4:1 majority that the restriction on women aged 10-50 from entering the temple was constitutional. The court held that the practice was not an "essential religious practice" protected under Articles 25 and 26 and emphasized that denominational rights could not override fundamental rights like equality and non-discrimination.
Legal Issue
Critical issues raised by the petition are:
Whether the prohibition on menstruation women’s entry in temples is fundamentally wrong and unconstitutional?
Is women’s exclusion from the sacred place an essential religious practice under Article 25?
Court’s Judgment
In the Year 2018, the Supreme Court ruled a judgment in the Sabarimala case advocating a variety of various issues including constitutional matters together with social implications. The Court probed deeply into the background of this discrimination, citing earlier Kerala High Court decisions and were given evidence that it was a custom and at last, they were forced to admit that such practices were inappropriate to the constitutional principles. The Court concluded that the Sabarimala temple's practice of excluding women aged between 10 and 50 was unconstitutional, thereby violating the provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality, prohibition against gender discrimination, and the abolition of untouchability for all citizens of India. The Court interpreted the exclusion of women as not constituting an "essential religious practice" within the ambit of Articles 25 and 26, which safeguard the freedom of religion and the administration of religious affairs, and in the opinion of the Court, devotees of Lord Ayyappa, by no stretch of the imagination, can be conceived of as constituting a separate denomination; their cultus is merely that of Hindu worship. The judgement stated that the practices enshrined under these articles must be in the mainstream of religion and cannot violate constitutional morality. The Supreme court highlighted that women have the right to worship in public religious places as well as men and pointed out that religious practices are a notion of control of the individual's honour and equality. The court was of the opinion that temple rights under Article 26 cannot eradicate the rights that are in the Constitution, and at the same time, that the religious rights of the group must be compatible with the individual's freedoms.
Dissenting views:
According to Justice Indu Malhotra, the majority opinion differs in that it is strictly bound by legislation. She said that rationality cannot be given room for courts in matters of religion. Judges could not judge what was an essential practice in religion depending on their subjective personal views. A freedom of practice of belief, this right was incorporated into Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, according to observations made by Justice Indu Malhotra.
Analysis
The apex court's verdict in the Sabarimala case of 2018 was a historic watershed for the country, which acted as a vehicle to promote the issues of gender equality, constitutional morality, and freedom of religious practices. The court found that the ban on the entry of women into the temple in the age group of 10-50 years was violative of Articles 14, 15 and 17 and amounted to an unconstitutional act. In other words, it recognized the spiritual ban the same as the "an integral part of religion," only it kept going through a series of the Constitution of India like equality, non-interference, lack of discrimination, freedom of religion, etc. But no was contradicted with sudden action by the tradition’s issues. The court was insistent that the religious beliefs which are so personal like the... religious instruction... could not be dragged into revamping the temple practices. Remember, and the right to worship is intrinsically connected to the right to life, and freedom.
However, Justice Indu Malhotra disagreed with the majority of the court and held that in such a matter the force and power of a rational mind should not have any say and that practically the religious faith is free from such intervention should be a guiding light in all these cases in the days and days ahead. The verdict brought suggestions such as interference by the judiciary, the feelings of the people were not respected, and the practicality of the judgment was questioned. If there were other alternatives, such as a staged cleaning or a consensual paper, which went through the change table, the roles, and the prescribed ones, there would have been peaceful acceptance among the people to implement modern advances and maintain the loyalty of the culture of the nation. The judgment, however, as of old sense of, still the traditional legal morality is inviolable right up to pushing the end, touched off the debates of a wider range of faith, equality issues and the ancient and the modern Indian context.
