The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Kerala government to draft a law exclusively covering the administration of the Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Swami Temple by the third week of January.
A three-judge Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana expressed dissatisfaction when the State chose to produce a draft Bill — The Travancore-Cochin Religious Institutions (Amendment) Bill of 2019 — containing certain proposed amendments to the Travancore-Cochin Religious Institutions Act of 1950.
The 1950 Act is presently governing over 100 temples, including Sabarimala.
The Bench reminded the Kerala government about its assurance on August 27 that “the State is considering enacting a separate legislation with regard to the administration of the Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Swami Temple”. Now, instead of the new law, the State has turned up in court with some amendments in the old Act.
Justice Ramana pointed out to senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, for Kerala, that a temple which receives lakhs of pilgrims should be governed by a separate Act. The court said an exclusive law was imperative for the welfare of pilgrims and effective management of the famed temple.
Even the practicality of one of the amendments proposed through the draft Bill came under the court’s scanner. It proposed one-third reservation for women in the temple advisory committees. Advocate G. Prakash, Kerala panel counsel in the apex court, later described it under Section 31A of the 1950 Act as part of the State’s ‘liberal’ push.
But the Bench questioned Mr. Gupta about the prospect of actively involving women even as the question of admission of women aged between 10 and 50 years into the temple was itself sub judice in the Supreme Court.
The Bench was referring to the recent majority verdict of a five-judge Constitution Bench in the Sabarimala review case. Side-stepping a decision on whether the apex court’s September 2018 decision to revoke the ban on women’s entry was right or wrong, the five-judge Bench on November 14 chose to refer the larger question of the tug-of-war between religious restrictions versus women’s equal right to worship in public religious places to a seven-judge Bench for an “authoritative pronouncement” .
The Constitution Bench had further asked the seven-judge Bench to consider whether the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 would govern the Sabarimala temple. The ban on menstruating women was imposed under Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules.
The Bench asked whether the State had not considered the possibility of the seven-judge Bench overturning the September 2018 judgment.
Responding to the query, Mr. Gupta suggested the State would consider women above 50 years of age in case the prohibition was brought back by the Supreme Court at a future date.
At this point, Justice B.R. Gavai, on the Bench, orally remarked that, after the September 2018 judgment, there was no such bar as of now and women of all ages could worship at the temple.
“Bar is not there.. all can go,” Justice Gavai remarked.
The Supreme Court, on November 14, did not expressly stay the implementation of its September 2018 judgment revoking the ban on menstruating women.
To the judge’s remark, Mr. Gupta said “that [whether there is a stay or not] is the discussion happening outside the court”.
