The Swamp logo

Case that Decided the Road to Justice in India

How standards of Law were decided when it comes to harmony between religion and constitution

By Rahul YadavPublished 3 years ago 3 min read
Like

In year 2018, Supreme Court of India lifted up the ban on entry of women during the age group of 10–50 years of age in Sabrimala Temple Premises. The case popularly known as Sabrimala Case, but in legal terms it’s Indian Young Lawyers’ Association V/s State of Kerala Case whose verdict came in year 2018 on side of petitioners.

Now, leaving behind all the politics, I would like to explain in the easiest words possible all the crux of Supreme court Judgement passed with 4:1 majority.

The whole issue was about the sanctity of Lord Ayappa. According to traditional texts and rituals, Lord Ayappa is Naishtika Brahmacharya i.e., Eternal Celibate. It simply means that in the eyes of law, he’s a living person and that’s why his rights should be preserved by law. Ban on women in Sabarimala was first challenged in Kerala High Court which in 1991 ruled that restriction was part of an age-old tradition. Upheld restriction on women between 10–50 age group.

In year 2016, Indian Young Lawyers’ Association filed a PIL in Supreme Court challenging the temple’s practice saying it was discriminatory and against gender justice.

The articles challenged along with the PIL were as follows :

Article 14 : The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Article 15 : The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

Article 17 which states abolition of untouchability in all forms possible.

Article 25 : Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

The law which was challenged in the petition was Rule 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965, “Women at such time during which they are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of worship”.

From the side of respondents it was stated that Since Lord Ayappa is eternal Celibate and exclusion of women during menstrual age (10–50 years) is essential religious practice as they constitute Religious Denomination under Article 26 of Constitution of India (Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and to administer such property in accordance with law)

Thus, Supreme Court can’t invade their essential religious practice in this case. But petitioners called out and even Supreme court found that:

Women had right of entry to Sabarimala temple at one point of time and that the ban might have gain currency in the intervening years and it is perhaps time to review it.

Sabrimala Temple, Kerala

If Sabrimala Temple is managed under Rule 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 that it can’t fall under Article 26 as separate Religious Denomination either. So, it’s public in nature and receiving funds from state government further signifies it’s public nature. And if, Lord Ayappa and it’s followers aren’t religious denomination under Article 26, then they come under Article 25.

And under Article 25, the practice of excluding women in age group 10–50 years is violative of their fundamental rights aforementioned. Just because, a customary ritual was followed from so long, doesn’t mean it’s logical and reasonable as well. Hence, this provision isn’t in sync with constitutional morality.

The court statement also goes in above statement i.e., “We have no hesitation in saying that such an exclusionary practice violates the right of women to visit and enter a temple to freely practise Hindu religion and to exhibit her devotion towards Lord Ayyappa. The denial of this right to women significantly denudes them of their right to worship.

controversies
Like

About the Creator

Rahul Yadav

Story teller from Preliterate Days. Now I write them.

Photon in a Double-slit✨

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.