The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to give an early hearing on a plea against the “continuous contempt” allegedly displayed by the Sabarimala temple’s chief priest when on Wednesday he closed its sanctum sanctorum after two women entered the temple in the wake of the court’s September 28 verdict allowing women of menstruating age to undertake the pligrimage.
In an oral mentioning before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, advocate P.V. Dinesh submitted that chief priest Kandararu Rajeevaru closed the sanctum to conduct purification rites after the two women’s entry into the temple.
Mr. Dinesh said the priest had done this even as a contempt petition against him filed on November 16 was pending in the apex court.
“For Sabarimala, we have kept the date as January 22 for hearing. We have arranged our schedules accordingly. It is not possible to re-schedule the hearing like this,” the CJI said. addressing the lawyer.
A five-judge Bench led by the CJI is listed to hear 49 review petitions and a range of applications regarding the September 28 verdict of the Constitution Bench in open court on January 22.
A woman had sought the permission of the Attorney General to file a contempt against Kandararu Rajeevaru.
The petition is pending the consideration of the Attroney General as he is required to provide consent before the contempt petition is filed in the Supreme Court, as per Part II Section 3(c) of Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.
The Review Bench of five judges, led by the CJI, had refused to stay the majority judgment by a Constitution Bench on September 28.
The majority judgment had declared the exclusion, which was solely based on the menstrual status of women, to be a smear on individual dignity. It said the bar amounted to “treating women as the children of a lesser God”.
The refusal to stay the judgment meant that worshippers, both men and women aged between 10 and 50, could undertake the pilgrimage. This led to many women trying to enter the temple. But they had to turn back following strong protests from right-wing activists and some pilgrims. The two women became the first to enter the temple with police protection. The aftermath saw protests erupting all over Kerala.
The decision to reexamine the majority view comes despite the fact that three of the judges on the Review Bench — Justices Rohinton Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud and A.M. Khanwilkar — were part of the majority judgment.
Justice Chandrachud, in his separate opinion, had compared the prohibition to the abolished practice of untouchability.
Lone dissenting opinion
Only Justice Indu Malhotra, the fifth judge on the Review Bench, had dissented on September 28. She declared the prohibition to be an “essential practice”. The judge held that imposing the court’s morality on a religion would negate the freedom to practise religion according to one’s faith and beliefs.
Justice Malhotra’s judgment has since become a rallying point for petitioners.
The multiple review petitions filed by a range of persons, from the temple’s chief priest to individuals and Ayyappa organisations, including women devotees’ bodies, have pleaded to the court that ‘reform’ does not mean rendering a religious practice extinct on the basis of a PIL plea filed by “third parties” who do not believe in the Sabarimala deity.
Justice Malhotra’s rationale that courts should not allow “interlopers” to file PIL petitions challenging religious practices is a common thread in the review petitions. The review petitioners have argued that the right to move the Supreme Court for violation of fundamental rights must be reserved for those whose personal rights to worship have been violated. Entertaining of PIL pleas on religious practices by third parties may invite “perils even graver for religious minorities”.
