LUCID MAINS CURRENT AFFAIRS 2019

6. SABARIMALA VERDICT
 BACKGROUND
Sabarimala is a Hindu pilgrimage center located in the Western Ghat mountain
ranges of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. Sabarimala is believed to be the place
where the Hindu God Ayyappan meditated after killing the powerful
demoness, Mahishi. Ayyappan's temple is situated here amidst 18 hills. It is linked
to Hindu pilgrimage, predominantly for men of all ages. They wear black or blue
dress, do not shave till the completion of pilgrimage and smear Vibhuti or Sandal
paste on their forehead. The devotees are expected to follow a Vratham (41-day
fasting) prior to the pilgrimage. This begins with wearing of a special Mala (a
garland made of Rudraksha or Tulasi beads).
Women between the ages of 10 and 50 are not allowed to enter the temple,
since the story attributed to Ayyappa prohibits the entry of the women in the
menstrual age group. This is because Ayyappan is a Bramhachari (celibate).
Thazhamon Madom'' is the traditional priest family who has powers over the
matters to be decided in Sabarimala Temple. Tantri is the highest priest and is the
head of the temple. The important message given at the temple is the ultimate
knowledge that each individual is a God unto himself/herself, Tat Tvam Asi in
Sanskrit meaning "That is you". Due to this pilgrims call each other Swami.
 ISSUE & VERDICT:
PIL was filed by the non-profit body Indian Lawyers
Association in Supreme Court seeking the entry of all
women and girls to the temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappan.
The Constitution Bench was formed to decide on the
issue.
Arguments under consideration were:
 Whether the restrictions on women was based on
biological factors
 Violation of Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 17
(untouchability),
 Arguments based on Articles 25 (freedom to practice and propagation of
religion), 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).
 Whether the devotees of the Ayyappa temple form a separate religious
denomination, thereby being allowed to preserve its own practices and rituals
among other questions.
NEO IAS 0484-4030104, 9446331522, 9446334122 Page 1
www.neoias.com | www.youtube.com/neoias | www.facebook.com/neoias | www.twitter.com/neoias
 Putting an end to a centuries-old tradition, the Supreme Court recently ruled that
women, irrespective of age, can enter Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. Four
judgments were delivered. Justice Malhotra, penned a dissenting verdict and the
rest of the judges responded to lift the ban.
 REACTIONS
 Indian Young Lawyers Association: argued that the bar on entry of women in
Sabarimala temple is neither a ritual nor a ceremony associated with Hindu
religion. Welcomes the verdict of the SC.
 Activists hail judgment: called it another step that would help in bringing
equality. Women have a constitutional right to be able to visit the temple and
whoever wishes must be allowed to visit it.

 Kerala Government: This was a legal fight which had been going on for a long
time. Discussions covering all aspects of women’s entry to religious shrines have
been held in the High Court and Supreme Court. We welcomes the verdict of the
Supreme Court. Also made clear that review petition would not be filed from
government side.
 Travancore Devaswom Board: Devaswom president said as a law-abiding body,
the Travancore Devaswom Board humbly welcomes the order of the Supreme
Court. Later stated no review petition will be filed.
 Thazhamon priest family, Pandalam royal family, Yogakshema Sabha,Nair
Service society who were part to this case said their disappointment with the
verdict and stated they would continue the fight by filing review petition.
 Devotees in large number protested against the judgment and urged the
government to rectify the situation.

NEO IAS 0484-4030104, 9446331522, 9446334122 Page 2

www.neoias.com | www.youtube.com/neoias | www.facebook.com/neoias | www.twitter.com/neoias
 ARGUMENT FOR VERDICT
 Patriarchy in religion cannot be allowed to trump right to pray and practice
religion. Woman just like men also has the right to pray. Patriarchal rules
have to change.
 To exclude women of the age group 10-50 from the temple is to deny dignity
to women. To treat women as children of lesser god is to blink at the
Constitution.
 The judgement establishes the principle that individual freedom prevails
over professed group rights, even in matters of religion.
 It opens up the way forward for Hinduism to become even more inclusive
and not a property of one caste or one sex.
 Supreme Court judgment clearly sends message that no social practice is
above constitution. This approach may solve many social injustices
prevailing.
 Social stigma built around traditional notions of impurity has no place in the
constitutional order, and exclusion based on the notion of impurity is a form
of untouchability.
 Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious
denomination as per the verdict and thus the prohibition on women is not
an essential part of Hindu religion
 Imposition of the burden of a man’s celibacy on a woman which is then
used to deny her access to spaces to which she is equally entitled is against
the constitutional values of the country.
 ARGUMENT AGAINST VERDICT
 It Article 25 guarantees freedom to profess and practice one's religion hence
striking down ban may be against spirit to profess one's religious practice
accordingly.
 The right to gender equality to offer worship to Lord Ayyappa is protected by
permitting women of all ages, to visit temples where he has not manifested
himself in the form of a ‘Naishtik Brahamachari’.Thus case of gender
inequality is invalid here.
 In a pluralistic society comprising of people with faiths, beliefs and traditions,
to entertain PILs challenging religious practices followed by any group, sect or
denomination, could cause serious damage to the constitutional and secular
fabric of this country.
 Lord Ayyappa is a ‘Legal Person’ and entitled to maintain the ‘Perpetual
Celibate’ status under the right to privacy under Article 21 and thus his privacy
needs to be protected.
 Notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religions.
 Court has embarked on a highly unpredictable and perilous path of hyper-
activism.
 Religion is a matter of faith, and that the essential beliefs or practices of a
religious denomination or sect are for that denomination or sect to decide.

NEO IAS 0484-4030104, 9446331522, 9446334122 Page 3

www.neoias.com | www.youtube.com/neoias | www.facebook.com/neoias | www.twitter.com/neoias
  The limited restriction on the entry of women during the notified age group
does not fall within the purview of Article 17.
 WAY FORWARD
The government will be well within its rights to seek from the Supreme Court a
preparatory time of a year before Sabarimala can be made gender-sensitive. The
judgment has to be seen as an opportunity to change archaic practices and
attitudes and usher in a new management culture. The government has to absorb
the ramifications of the order and undertake planning with foresight. It will be a
tragedy if this judgment becomes cause to undertake additional construction
at the Sannidhanam. Large-scale modifications of existing buildings, a re-
engineering of processes and much-needed training of staff in housekeeping,
office management and counter management, etc. are the major tasks the
government cannot shy away from. With the entry of women now a legally
recognized right, its implementation has to be elegant and foolproof.
Inadequate safeguards and preparations will only make a mockery of the verdict
and validate the worst fears.

 CONCLUSION
Constitutional morality is an important check on religious obscurantism but when
carried to an extreme it can also be destructive of harmless variety and difference.
There is a danger of reducing the Constitution itself to another unquestionable “holy
book”, killing diversity in the name of countering discrimination. This is a popular
sentiment among the devotees, the government should take steps to eradicate
these doubts before implementing the Supreme Court verdict. Otherwise a
confrontation between the state and the people may not go well for the democratic
values of the country.

NEO IAS 0484-4030104, 9446331522, 9446334122 Page 4

www.neoias.com | www.youtube.com/neoias | www.facebook.com/neoias | www.twitter.com/neoias