Login With Google
Ban on entry of women in Sabarimala is patriarchal: SC
Why in the news ?
- The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that the ban on entry of women in the age group of 10-50 years into the Sabarimala temple would be tested on “constitutional ethos”.
- SC asked the temple board to establish that the restriction was an “essential and integral” part of religious faith.
Background
- The Sabarimala temple does not allow women between the ages of 10 and 50 to enter its inner sanctum, a practice defended by the Travancore Devaswom Board.
- In April 2017, the board said women who want to offer prayers in the temple’s inner sanctum must carry proof of age.
- In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a writ petition saying the restriction was unconstitutional.
- After some occasional hearings by various judges, the plea was referred to a three-judge bench in 2008, and finally taken up for hearing in January 2016.
- In October 2017, a three-judge bench headed by Misra referred the matter to the Constitution bench.
- The Constitution bench is considering whether the practice is discriminatory and, therefore, in violation of the right to equality before law, protection from religious discrimination and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, or whether it qualifies as an “essential religious practice” under Article 25, which allows grants every citizen the freedom to follow one’s religion in a manner one chooses.
Travancore Devaswom Board's stand
- The Travancore Devaswom Board asserted that the practice of permitting only very young and old women to Sabarimala temple is there since antiquity and the Supreme Court should not venture to disturb it.
- The board running Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, defended the restrictions it imposes on the entry of women, claiming that some other temples deny entry to men.
- It said the ban on the entry of women in the temple was not gender specific as it barred women of a particular age group and there was the notion of “purity” attached to it.
- Advocate representing Devaswom Board said SC cannot unsettle this practice in a writ petition and that too when no one has complained that they were prevented entry into the temple,and argued that the SC couldn't decide what is essential religious practice.
Supreme Court's stand
- A five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was apparently not in agreement with the argument of the Travancore Devaswom Board running the over 800-year-old Lord Ayyappa temple that the “practice and belief” that have continued uninterrupted cannot be tested on the ground of “modern ethos”.
- “Not modern ethos, but constitutional ethos. Modern notions keep changing. After 1950 (when the Constitution came into being), everything should conform to constitutional principles and ethos,” the bench said.
- The bench also told senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing the temple board that it will have to establish that banning the entry of women was “essential and integral” part of the religious belief.
- Supreme Court now recently said that Ban on entry of women of a certain age group at the Sabarimala temple is based on the “patriarchal” belief that the dominant status of a man in society makes him capable of austerity, while a woman, who is only a “chattel of a man,” is incapable of remaining pure for the 41 days of penance before the pilgrimage.
Source
The Hindu, Scroll, Asian Age