Author: Jagruti Yadav, Student at Sharda University Greater Noida
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2018)
ABSTRACT
Apparently, this case is not what it looks like from the outside. This article will disclose the reality of this controversial case which was spreading all over Indian public at some point of time. I will also talk about the religious traditions and their basis along with the arguments of individual rights and discrimination against men. The critical analysis of this case from all perspectives and point of views will be shown in this article. The objective is to make the public aware of the real cause behind the so called discriminatory customs and how it is important for us to learn about the actual face of case. I will talk about the Supreme Court ruling of 2018 which caused a huge stir in the society of Kerala and was portrayed as a scene of gender inequality in front of the public. It is important for the public to know about the ground reality of this case so that no wrong opinions are formed regarding this case. This article judge the case in an unbiased manner and is going to be an eye-opener for the readers who don’t know much about the actual reasons and cause.
INTRODUCTION (FACTS)
The Sabrimala Temple is a religious Hindu temple which is located in Kerala at the center of the Periyar Tiger Reserve. It is a temple of a deity named Ayyappan. The temple is managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TBD). The point here was that women ranging between the ages of 10 to 50 were not allowed to enter the temple as per the rules of the TBD. The reason being spread in the media was that this tradition was in practice due the menstruation cycle of the women. Allegedly, this case was a case of gender inequality and discrimination against women and their individual rights were being exploited. There were many people who protested against this practice and many who supported it. The ones who were against it argued that this tradition was a serious exploitation of the personal rights of women and that it was constitutionally wrong. The ones who supported it had a whole different perspective with it being right as well. They argued that the temple issue was a religious issue and it shouldn’t be confused with being related to secularism. They also argued that it was not due to any gender discrimination or biological activity of women that leads to this custom. They said that there was no discrimination happening with this practice.
BASIS OF THE RESTRICTION:
The restrictions are based on the fact that the deity in the temple, Swami Ayyappa, is a Naishtika Brahmachari. It means that the deity is regarded as being and is fed and bathed and taken care of just as a being. It means that he has promised himself to be an eternal brahmachari. It means he will lead his whole life as a monk. This being the reason of the existence of the temple since 300 years, the deity cannot come in contact with any women who comes under the reproductive age group. He is an eternal celibate, which is a state of complete purity and piousness. Hence the deity cannot come in contact with any women who menstruates and is capable of reproduction.
The followers of the Lord Ayyappa regarded this custom as a mandatory practice and they believed that its violation will lead to the breaking of spiritual development and non-maintenance of diverse of heritage and culture.
The second reason for this restriction was that they were not allowed to enter the temple in earlier times due the tigers being frequent visitors to that area. The supporters said that as the temple was located in between of a tiger reserve it was often that people were attacked by the tigers. It was said that the women during their menstruating period are more vulnerable to be attacked by the tigers because of a specific smell that the tigers could sniff. Hence, for the safety of women, men did not take women with them and eventually this became a restriction.
Although this reason is constitutionally and practically wrong with us living in the 21st century. Tigers roaming around is not a concern anymore and this reason is logically and legally both unjustifiable.
LAWS REGARDING THIS RESTRICTION:
The Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, mentions that women are prohibited from entering the Sabrimala Temple premises.
The Kerala High Court in 1991 also restricted the entry of women into the temple through one of its judgment and justifying it by saying this restriction has been there through centuries and does not against the constitution.
The court also highlighted that only the chief priest had the power to decide the traditions of the temple.
Almost 14 years later, in 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association along with others decided to challenge and question this ruling. They approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition in order to seek a direction towards the freedom of women to enter the Sabrimala temple without any age restriction.
People against the tradition argued that this practice violated the Article 14, 15, 25 and 51A (e) of the Indian Constitution. They demanded that the Rule 3(b) should be declared unconstitutional.
The appellants emphasized on the maintenance of liberty and equality in the society and requested the court to make it a landmark for the future cases so that there will not be any discrimination against women.
They argued in favor of the women’s entry into the temple with the submission that mere sight of women will not break the oath of celibacy of the deity and that they should be granted equal rights to enter the temple.
Furthermore, the idea of impure menstruation being the reason for this restriction being spread in the news and within the public is not right. It is mere a rumor being spread as the actual news was that a particular age group of women, i.e. 10 to 50, were not allowed simply because the deity cannot come in contact with women who are capable of reproducing. It just became the talk of the city that they were restricted due to their biological activity. If that was the actual reason then it was definitely the violation of women’s rights. But it was not so.
THE JUDGES’ DILEMMA:
There were 5 judges in total on the bench. They were CJI Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, and Justice AM Khanwilkar.
The judges were in a dilemma regarding this situation. They were torn between preferring constitutional principles and morality and choosing religion and devotion. They had to make a decision where nobody would be devoid of their fundamental rights and nobody had to compromise with their integrity and dignity. Otherwise the whole purpose of the constitution would fail.
The judges said that mere biological reasons should not be the reason to debar women from worshiping God. Also it will hamper the order and functioning of the society. They said that the freedom to religion cannot be the basis of religious patriarchy.
They had to strike a balance between the individual rights and religious freedom to maintain the order of the society and provide justice to all the aggrieved women.
After all these considerations the majority judgment was in the favor of women and their personal fundamental rights, establishing liberty and equality in the society and also maintaining the dignity of the religion and referring to the true essence of religious freedom. The court also directed the state to bring out social reforms and cut out such practices prevailing in the society.
Justice Indu Malhotra was a sole women on the bench and also was the only person against women’s entry. Her contention was that the court must not interfere with which religious practices are to be struck down unless it is of a serious nature and is a social evil such as Sati. She opined that the judges should not let their own views and morality come in between the religious practices.
NEW GUIDELINES AND JUDGEMENT:
During the hearing the bench made several observations and came to a conclusion that what applies to men also applies to women and once a place is open to public it means everyone and anyone can go.
Women’s right to pray is equal to that of a man and there is no need for any constitutional contention for that. Justice Nariman also observed that menstruation is not impure.
A wider interpretation was given to Art 17 stating that debarring and excluding menstruating women from entering the temple violates Art 17 as considering women on menstruation as impure would also amount to untouchability. The Rule 3(b) was also declared unconstitutional.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed women between the age group of 10 to 50 years who were denied entry earlier to enter the Sabrimala temple and worship just like any other individual. This statement gave preference to the right guaranteed under Article 25(1) of female worshipers.
PRESENT STATUS OF RULING (CONCLUSION)
This judgment has proven to be landmark judgment and has created history in 2018. It has become an example of progressive society and an epitome of development of the constitutional morality.
The judgment of Sabrimala broke the records as it was a battle between religious beliefs and notions and equality for every citizen. It created a balance between the religious freedom and individual rights with maintaining and convincing the traditions of the society.
This judgment once again showed the supremacy of the constitution and that the women should not be deprived of their rights to worship as guaranteed by the constitution. Once a place is public then it means anyone can visit that place no matter the gender or the reason. On the other hand this ruling also maintained the heritage and cultural tradition of the society. Even though the women are now allowed to enter the temple they will not come in any contact with the deity to maintain the religious tradition and purity of the oath of celibacy as mere sight of women would not make the Lord Ayyappa impure or break his brahmachari state.
